Avoid Highway Robbery by Using The New Crude--WATER

by: Leslie Lackman

 

HERE'S THE BAD NEWS.

Engines waste gasoline! Up to 80% of the high-priced gas that you pump doesn't get you anywhere because it goes UNBURNED to the catalytic converter. That means you are getting 0 MPG (zero, zilch, nada) from most of the over-priced gasoline you pump into your tank.

WHY DO COMBUSTION ENGINES WASTE SO MUCH GAS?

That's what they are designed to do--WASTE GAS--because every second of every day, everywhere in the world, every single gas and diesel engine on the planet puts money into the deep, deep, DEEP pockets of Big Oil.

Automotive and fuel technology has been deliberately held back, and people have been kept in the dark about AMAZING inventions and discoveries, in order to sell us lots of gasoline. Sorry, but that's how it is.

For example, the gas could be preheated and better formulated for better combustion--but it's not. The fuel vapor droplets could be smaller for efficient combustion--but they're not. The pre-set computer-controlled air-to-fuel ratio could be more economical--but it's not. The exhaust could be reprocessed to contribute to mileage (there are patents on that)--but it's not. Cars could be using a better carburetor design--but they're not because the patent for a 100 MPG carburetor was bought and buried years ago. Cars could be running completely on water fuel--but they're not because those patents were also bought and then buried along with the inventor (however, the patents ran out recently!). Even the hybrids that Big Auto is selling at luxury car prices don't optimize gasoline combustion and consumption.

HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.

You can do something about it, ONE CAR AT A TIME, starting with YOUR car.

How? By using ENERGY from WATER.

If that sounds impossible, or crazy, or delusional, I understand. This is something that none of our trusted sources of information--TV, radio, teachers, movies, professors, magazines, dad, scientists, books, Sesame Street--have told us about. Why? See the bad news, above.

I mentioned amazing inventions and discoveries. Many of them have very sophisticated technical patents on them. But the kind of water energy system I am talking about, the one that is affordable and do-able by ME and YOU in OUR cars (not by buying a Big Auto hybrid with a luxury car pricetag), is a do-it-yourself technology, specifically designed for beginners with basic tools and very limited budgets. A working system can be built at home for $20 to $200 worth of parts and installed in your car, truck, or SUV on a weekend. It's a 90-year-old technology that has been revived and developed into a simple, affordable, SAFE system based on low-cost hardware.

It works like this: The main component of the low-cost water energy system is an electrolyzer-a container of water with electrodes in it. The electrolyzer takes a tiny bit of electricity from your car. The electricity "splits" water into hydroxyl gas and feeds it immediately to the engine cylinders. The improved air/fuel mix gets very efficient combustion.

SPINNING WHEELS, NOT HEADS

Remember the bad news at the top? Remember I said that wasted fuel can be as much as 80%? In other words, even though you have paid $3.50 or more per gallon, you are only getting performance from as little as 20%--two gallons out of every ten--of the gas you pay good money for! It puts a whole new complexion on the phrase "highway robbery."

Our heads are spinning from rising gas prices. Now imagine instead that ALL your gasoline is working for you--it's actually turning your wheels and not just being turned into carbon deposits on your engine or exhaust from the catalytic converter. What would it be like for ALL that gasoline to be giving you mileage? It would be a WHOLE LOT MORE ECONOMICAL, that's what! That's what happens when you add the energy from water.

SEEING THE SEA OF ENERGY

Wondering how much energy is in water?

One gallon of water converts to approximately 1,833 gallons of combustible gas. One observer noted that a gallon of water in his water energy system lasted for about 2,700 miles.

"Energy from water" is hard to believe because we are misled by the appearance of water when it's liquied. It looks so, well, WET and noncombustible. But if we could SEE the sea of energy in the water--zillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms ready to break out and be combustible gas under the right conditions--it would be easy to conceive that, indeed, water can be "burned" in an engine, thus taking advantage of a new "crude"--plain water.

Why aren't scientists telling us about this? Why doesn't it make big headlines? More bad news. Some of them just don't know about it, and some are paid to tell us about anything BUT this. Also, scientists are sometimes far behind empirical evidence from experimenters and inventors. Sometimes a true scientist makes an amazing discovery and is suddenly way ahead of everyone. What happens then? He or she has to fight all the other scientists that are way behind or too vested in the old paradigm. So who are the true scientists around here? A TRUE scientist could be anyone, including a scientist.

THE LAW OF CONSERVATION

Here is something to ponder from Patrick J. Kelly of http://www.PanaceaUniversity.org. He has a delightful way of tilting one's mind out of its box:

"The Law of Conservation of Energy is undoubtedly correct when it shows that more energy cannot be taken out of any system than is put into that system. However, that does not mean that WE cannot get more energy out of a system than WE put into it. A crude example is a solar panel in sunlight. We get electrical power out of the panel but we do not put the sunlight into the panel-the sunlight arrives on its own. This example is simple as we can see the sunlight reaching the solar panel.

"If, instead of the solar panel, we had a device which absorbs some of the energy that Quantum Mechanics observes and then gives out, say, electrical power, would that be so different? Most people say "yes!--it is impossible!" but this reaction is based on the fact that we cannot see this sea of energy. Should we say that a TV set cannot possibly work because we cannot see a television transmission signal?"

BUT ISN'T IT DANGEROUS?

We have been living and driving with danger for decades--it's called GASOLINE! Cars and trucks are planet-polluting bombs on wheels! But we are accustomed to it, right? And for the most part, we don't blow ourselves up.

But in the water energy system, I know, you think we're talking about tanks of compressed hydrogen in the car, but that's not how it is done! Here's the beauty of it:

Hydrogen is already compressed in plain water!

All we do in a water for fuel system is UNCOMPRESS and USE it--immediately, on-demand, in the engine! No hydrogen bombs on board. Just a container of distilled water! And the exhaust is--WATER! You split water, you burn it, you get fantastic mileage, you get a little water left over.

GREEN TECHNOLOGY

You can't get much greener than this unless you go for an engine designed to run completely on water, like the one that was designed and proven by Stanley Meyers when he drove across the United States on approximately 28 gallons of water. (You can see interviews with him on YouTube.) You can't get much more affordable, either. And because this is GREEN technology, and you will not be causing any damage to the car or the engine (far from it), your warranty will most likely be intact AND the government will owe you money for going green!

INSTALL WATER ENERGY SYSTEM, DROP JAW

You could pay someone to install your water for gas system. There are hundreds of people around the world who are constructing and installing water energy systems, as well as driving "watercars" themselves. These people save gas, save money, get much better mileage, and enjoy smoother-running engines and greatly reduced emissions. And that's why they are happy to do the same for you so you can save gas, save money, get much better mileage, and enjoy a smoother-running engine and reduced emissions.

Or you could do it yourself, in which case you would first get instructions, which are available on line. Then you would make a parts list and buy the parts from hardware and electronics stores. Third, you would construct the components of the water energy system, put them all together, and install the system, making all the necessary adjustments to it. You would now be the proud owner of a Water Hybrid Vehicle. And last, after picking up your jaw from the floor, where it has dropped in astonishment at your engine's mileage and performance, you would become an advocate of water energy, as I have.

BETTER COMBUSTION FOR THE MIND

To really grasp the implications and possibilities here, we must first clean the carbon deposits out of our minds. Using waterfuel is an approach to our cars and fuel that requires more participation from us. The whole water energy system consists of physical components PLUS your mind and attitudes about fuel consumption. To really optimize your waterfuel system, you will also be using fuel warmer, some Kiker wires to improve the spark, Xylene to add to your gasoline, a low-friction synthetic motor oil, a couple bottles of fuel treatment to clean carbon deposits from old unburned fuel out of your engine, a MAP sensor enhancer to keep the car computer from over-correcting the fuel mix back to over-rich, tires that are always fully inflated, and a real-time mileage tracker so that you won't have to use an entire tank of gas to know what mileage you are getting.

Perhaps the most important thing is this:

Trust yourself.

When you use an "alternative" fuel-efficiency system, you are an experimenter who is going against the herd and chances are, you are going to get some flack. Don't be fooled by self-appointed "experts" who don't have hands-on experience and say it can't be done. When they laugh or frown or condescend and say, "It's scientifically impossible," well, first of all, you know they are not "true scientists" (so why are they acting like they know what "scientifically" means?). Ask them if they have ever tried it themselves. You will find they have not. Further discussion might be fruitless, but you can try. Tell them to just wait and see. See for yourself. Don't wait ten years for big industry to do it because they don't want to GIVE you anything--they are only thinking about what they can GET from you while they continue making empty promises.

WHAT CAN A WATER ENERGY SYSTEM REALLY DO FOR ME?

Well…

How much will gas cost the next time you fill your tank?

A water energy system won't lower the price of ALL gasoline.

It will lower the price of YOURS. But don't just take my word for it.

Leslie Lackman is an advocate of the application of free, unlimited energies--mind, water, life force--to cars, health, wellness, and performance.
http://water4gas-4heroes.eoltt.com

Understanding the Mortgage Meltdown; What happened and Who's to Blame

by: Richard Gandon

 

People are losing their homes and many more will lose their jobs before the mortgage meltdown works its way through the system.

To paraphrase Alan Greenspan's remarks on March 17th, 2008, "The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War. The crisis will leave many casualties."

How many casualties? Experts are predicting that in the next few years, between 15 and 20 million homeowners could have homes worth less than what they owe. Walking away from a bad situation may actually make sense for people who mortgages that are 'upside down' considering the fact that refinancing is out of the question and home equity is nonexistent.

It seems quite easy to point fingers at greedy Wall Street titans for causing the sub-prime mortgage crises. They after all, put together the deals that allowed banks to underwrite mortgages and then offload these liabilities to investors. What many fail to realize is that there is no shortage of blame to go around from homeowners buying more home than they could afford to real estate agents looking for more commission dollars. Mortgage brokers and bankers, the banks themselves, ratings agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, Wall Street, the Fed and last but certainly not least, the Federal Government.

Let's start with the homeowners--the people who are now in the process or soon to enter the process, of losing their homes. Some of these people had never before owned a home and as such, may not have been prepared for the costs associated with homeownership. Basic financial literacy is sorely lacking in this country despite there being no shortage of budgeting and tracking programs readily available such as Quicken and Microsoft Money. The lack of financial literacy does not absolve these buyers of their responsibility. Every borrower receives a truth in lending disclosure statement. Here is a portion of what the act covers:

The purpose of TILA (Truth In Lending Act) is to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost. TILA also gives consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling, regulates certain credit card practices, and provides a means for fair and timely resolution of credit billing disputes. With the exception of certain high-cost mortgage loans, TILA does not regulate the charges that may be imposed for consumer credit. Rather, it requires a maximum interest rate to be stated in variable-rate contracts secured by the consumer's dwelling. It also imposes limitations on home equity plans that are subject to the requirements of Sec. 226.5b and mortgages that are subject to the requirements of Sec. 226.32. The regulation prohibits certain acts or practices in connection with credit secured by a consumer's principal dwelling.

Much of the subprime mortgage crisis can be traced directly back to variable-rate mortgages. As is clearly stated above, "TILA does not regulate the charge that may be imposed for consumer credit. Rather, it requires a maximum interest rate to be stated in variable-rate contracts secured by the consumers dwelling." It also clearly states that TILA also gives consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling. One has to wonder whether or not these homeowners:

1. Bothered to read the truth in lending act disclosure at all.

2. Understood what the truth in lending act disclosure meant.

3. Chose to ignore the information printed clearly the truth in lending act disclosure.

A number of months ago, just as the subprime mortgage crisis was beginning to unfold, The New York Daily News ran an article about a family in New York City, who had bought a home and were now faced with the prospect of foreclosure. The article was sympathetic to this family, highlighting the fact that they're living the American dream and that this dream was about to come to an end. What I found to be distressing was the fact that clearly visible in the photo that accompanied this sympathetic article was a very expensive flat screen television hanging on the wall. Perhaps I'm naïve, but I can assure you that if I were faced with the prospect of losing my home and having my family put out on the street, there is absolutely no way that I would still have that expensive television hanging on my wall. It would have been one of the first things to be sold and some financial relief would be found by jettisoning what I'm sure was the expensive cable bill.

Clearly the public needs easy access to financial literacy courses. Too bad we don't see the need to make this a mandatory course of study in our educational system.

Mortgage bankers and brokers have in the last four or five years been raking in cash by the bucket load in the form of commissions paid when mortgages they've originated, close. Many of these people have not needed to do much in the way of prospecting. Instead, their phones have run off the hook as people have jumped on the homeownership and refinancing and take out extra cash bandwagon, despite their ability to pay for their home. No-document loans were readily available without the borrower having to produce documentation that backed up their income. Clearly this practice can and indeed has, lead to substandard loan underwriting processes. Were some of these mortgage bankers and brokers dishonest? Sure. Were all of them dishonest? I think not. To have a massive nationwide conspiracy, where thousands and thousands of people involved in the mortgage banking and mortgage brokering profession got together to create this situation is simply not feasible. Yes, some of the blame does belong with those in the mortgage industry, but they were simply a small cog in the huge machine that created this mess.

Let's discuss real estate agents. In 2007, we bought a home, and also sold a home. The agent we used to purchase our home was absolutely fantastic. In our opinion, she went above and beyond to make our deal happen. She answered every phone call, followed up on every concern and was the epitome of professionalism. We consider this individual to be a friend, and we have sent referrals her way that have resulted in her earning additional commissions. We will continue to recommend her to all who ask or mention that they'd like to buy or sell a home in our area.

The real estate agent, we used to sell our home, could not have been more different. We got our old home ready to sell prior to closing on our new home. We decided to list it as "For Sale by Owner." In the event that we didn't sell this home on our own, it was our intention to list it with an agent as soon as we had closed on the purchase our new home. Literally, from the day we put the sign in front of our home and listed it on a "For Sale by Owner" website we were inundated with phone calls from real estate agents. We were told many lies and were constantly harassed; although we had already made it quite clear to every agent who called, and there were more to 60 who did; that we were willing to pay half the commission-the same as they would have received had they sold another agent's listing. We also told every agent that called that we had already lined up an agent to sell our home in the event that we chose to no longer sell it ourselves. Our deadline was the closing date of our new home purchase. We did have an interested buyer who shortly after our closing date decided to keep looking so we listed our home with a local agent so that we could concentrate on getting our new home ready for our moving date at the end of the school year. This agent showed our home a maximum of two times and got an offer which we accepted. We ended up getting $1,000 less than we had wanted in a declining Real Estate market. The agents who had called many times to harass us called our listing agent on a number of occasions and he lied telling them that the house was under contract when in fact it wasn't at that time-clearly a breach of our agent's fiduciary duty. Quite frankly an ethical agent would have continued to show our home until closing in the event that the deal fell through.

But wait, there's more. Our agent also acted as the buyer's mortgage broker. At the closing table, we learned that he had signed documents from the buyer stating that he (our agent) represented them and we had signed documents stating that he represented us. We also learned that the buyer had effectively put down approximately 2-3% of the purchase price when financed closing costs were factored into the equation. Their first mortgage had what we thought was a high fixed rate and their second mortgage came with a rate in excess of 8.5%. Because the closing happened in August, literally in the midst of the first wave of the meltdown, if they didn't close on the day they did (August 31st, 2007), Citibank wasn't going to extend their rate. When my wife & I have bought houses in the past, it had always been a very happy day. These people looked absolutely shell-shocked at the closing table. I'm not convinced that they knew just how much their monthly payment was going to be until closing day. We knew down to the penny well in advance having budgeted and planned everything on a spreadsheet. Were these people stupid or just inexperienced and mislead by a greedy combination of real estate agent & mortgage broker? I'm extremely confident that they are intelligent people but inexperienced and taken advantage of by an unscrupulous agent.

The banks are also culpable. Prior to bank deregulation, Savings and Loans provided mortgages to home buyers and kept these loans on their books. Non-performing loans had a negative effect on the S&L's profitability which of course caused tighter lending guidelines such as job stability and decent down payments in order for prospective home buyers to be approved for a mortgage. Way back then, a home buyer had to actually save up enough money for a down payment 10 or even 20% before a bank would ever consider underwriting a mortgage. The checks & balances kept banks solvent and borrowers responsible. Although this approach worked, some cried foul stating that the regulated system was racist and discriminatory-and there certainly was some truth to this. Skipping forward to the present, banks made a bundle on mortgages over the past five or six years. For the most part, they allowed their underwriting criteria to be stretched so far out of alignment that almost anyone could and indeed did, qualify for a mortgage despite their ability to pay. Some folks even applied for and received mortgages for more than the property was worth. Sometimes for as much as 25% more than their property was worth!

Under the prior system, 125% mortgages would not have been possible because of course these loans were held on the banks' books and could have led to losses that would have had to have been absorbed directly by the bank.

So what went wrong? Under the current system, these loans were sold to the big Wall Street investment firms who repackaged them as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO's), Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS's) and other similar acronyms. These instruments were then sent to the ratings agencies for their blessing and more importantly a letter rating. Many of these structured finance deals receive AAA ratings-the highest ratings available meaning that in theory, these instruments were least likely to default. How does one create a 'triple A' or AAA rated financial instrument out of sub-prime mortgages? Herein lies the magic. These Asset Backed Securities (ABS) are made up of different tranches or slices, each carrying a different risk and reward level. The first dollar of principle and interest is applied to the securities with the highest rating, and the first dollar of loss is applied to the tranche with the lowest ratings. The lower slices are designed to provide a security blanket that in theory protects the higher-rated securities. The investment banks that package or 'structure' these securities in order to earn fat fees when they sell them to investors are the same entities that pay the ratings agencies to rate these instruments. Clearly the possibility for conflict of interest is present. If investors and not the investment banks that stand to rake in millions in fees were to pay for the rating, the potential for this conflict of interest would be negated. Furthermore, the investment banks have a vested interest in convincing the ratings agencies of the credit worthiness of these securities.

So we've already pointed fingers at homeowners, some greedy, many more I suspect, naïve or uninformed, real estate agents-one out of more than 60 in my experience was a gem, mortgage brokers & bankers, banks, Wall Street and ratings agencies so who's left? The Federal Reserve and the Government of course.

The Fed as its known is responsible of the country's monetary policy and for supervision and regulation of banks. This is the definition of the Fed's roles in their own words:

Monetary Policy

The Fed is best known for its role in making and carrying out the country's monetary policy-that is, for influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in order to promote the goals of high employment, sustainable growth, and stable prices.

The long-term goal of the Fed's monetary policy is to ensure that money and credit grow sufficiently to encourage non-inflationary economic expansion.

The Fed cannot guarantee that our economy will grow at a healthy pace, or that everyone will have a job. The attainment of these goals depends on the decisions of millions of people around the country. Decisions regarding how much to spend and how much to save, how much to invest in acquiring skills and education, how much to spend on new plant and equipment, or how many hours a week to work may be some of them.

What the Fed can do, is create an environment that is conducive to healthy economic growth. It does so by pursuing a goal of price stability-that is, by trying to prevent inflation from becoming a problem.

Inflation is defined as a sustained increase in prices over a period of time.

A stable level of prices is most conducive to maximum sustained output and employment. Also, stable prices encourage saving and, indirectly, capital formation because it prevents the erosion of asset values by unanticipated inflation.

Inflation causes many distortions in the market. Inflation:

· hurts people with fixed income-when prices rise consumers cannot buy as much as they could previously

· discourages savings

· reduces economic growth because the economy needs a certain level of savings to finance investments that boost economic growth

· makes it harder for businesses to plan-it is difficult to decide how much to produce, because businesses can't predict the demand for their product at the higher prices they will have to charge in order to cover their costs

Bank Regulation & Supervision

The Fed is one of the several Government agencies that share responsibility for ensuring the safety and soundness of our banking system. The Fed has primary responsibility for supervising bank holding companies, financial holding companies, state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, and the Edge Act and agreement corporations, through which U.S. banking organizations operate abroad.

The Fed and other agencies share the responsibility of overseeing the operation of foreign banking organizations in the United States. To insure that the banking system remains competitive and operates in the public interest, the Fed considers applications by banks for mergers or to open new branches.

The passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act in November 1999, was the culmination of a multi-decade effort to eliminate many of the restrictions on the activities of banking organizations.

Some of the main provisions of the GLB are:

· Repeals the existing limitations on the ability of banks to affiliate with securities and insurance firms

· Creates a new organizational form that allows banking organizations to carry new powers. This new entity called a "financial holding company," (FHC) and its non-banking subsidiaries are allowed to engage in financial activities such as insurance and securities underwriting

The Fed's enlarged role as an umbrella supervisor of FHCs is similar to its role in supervising bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve Banks will supervise and regulate the FHCs while each affiliate is still overseen by its traditional functional regulator.

The Fed has to delineate the financial relationship between a bank and other FHC affiliates. Its primary goal is to establish barriers protecting depository institutions from the problems of a failing affiliate. To do this efficiently the Fed has to ensure increased communication, cooperation, and coordination with the many supervisors of the more diversified FHCs.

The Fed has access to data on risks across the entire organization, as well as information on the firm's management of those risks. Regulators will be in a position to evaluate and presumably act on risks that threaten the safety and soundness of the insured banks.

It would appear that the Fed has failed to curb housing inflation which played a role in this entire debacle then made matters worse and in their efforts or lack there of, to properly supervise banking institutions.

Finally the government, a.k.a. Uncle Sam, the big Kahuna 10,000 pound elephant etc. Where do we begin? How about with: 'Where were they?'

It now appears that after millions of horses are out of the barn (some horses ran, others were foreclosed upon) the government wants to step in with a bailout to save the rest. While nobody wants to see people lose their homes, the question that must be raised is this: What about all those of us who were responsible? Those of us, who scrimped and saved up a decent down payment, bought less-house than we could afford and who live below our means? Many of us drive older cars and keep them longer. We don't run out and buy the latest and greatest at inflated prices, we watch, wait and budget.

When the World Trade Center was attacked, families who decided not to sue received government payouts and we certainly don't begrudge them as I'm sure that given the choice, they'd prefer to still have their loved-ones over the money. The problem, in typical government fashion is that those who were responsible and had insurance policies in place received less than those who were irresponsible and didn't plan ahead. I'm not talking about dishwashers at Windows on the World and blue collar workers; I'm talking about executives, traders and people who should have known better.

Now our government, the same government that sat by idly watching as this bubble got bigger and bigger despite many warnings, wants to step in and bailout people who are in danger of losing their homes. There has been no talk about educating people, let's not teach people to fish, rather, let's give them a fish and bail them out once again at the expense of those who are responsible.

Clearly, by keeping the majority of the population financially ignorant, there is a lot of money to be made by the poverty industry

Wood Gas - The Future Biomass-Derived Fuel

by: Krzysztof Lis

Let's assume, that you own a farm. You produce grain and have a lot of straw. You'd like to make your energy on site from the biomass you have available. You might plant your fields with rapeseed or canola and produce biodiesel. But you'd need to get methanol and lye first, since both of them can't be made there! And you can use your biodiesel only in compression ignition (diesel) engines. And what if you have an old genset powered by spark-ignition (gasoline / petrol) engine? I think I might have a solution for you...

You'll make use of a technology that's more than 200 years old. It's greatest development took place during World War II in 1940s in Europe. At that time most of petroleum-derived fuels were used by military and there was no fuel left for civilians. So they made their own fuel, the wood gas from wood or charcoal. In some countries 95% of civilian transport (trucks, buses, even fishermen's boats) were fueled with this gas.

What is this wood gas? From chemical point of view it's a mixture of combustible carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4), dilluted with some water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2). This gas can be easily used for almost every internal combustion engine. Well... except for the most modern ones, they'd require to have their electronics to be modified.

How wood gas is made? When you heat wood it is pyrolysed, i.e. all the tars vaporize. When you add some oxygen, the carbon bound within the wood cells is burnt to carbon dioxide. The vapors burn too. When those burnt gasses pass through a layer of very hot char, they are reduced to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. A small amount of methane is also produced. When the gas is cooled and cleaned of any tars and particles, it can be used in internal combustion engine, boiler or any other device!

What do you need to produce your own wood gas? You'd need a device that's called gasifier. It consists of fuel hopper, gasifying chamber and a set of filters. It's very easy to build, the people during WWII made it out of old water heaters and stuff like that.

Is wood gas safe? Well, if you don't inhale it, you'll be OK. Carbon monoxide is very toxic and poisonous, so caution is required when using wood gas. From the engine point of view, if it's clean, it's safe. The tars might condense inside the engine, for example on valves, which might cause the engine to fail. The particles would probably destroy the contact surfaces on pistons and cylinders. If the gas is too hot the engine will not work (hot gas is diluted and has small energy content per unit volume), but it will not harm it.

Any drawbacks? One that's worth mentioning. Petrol engines will suffer 1/3 power loss -- the wood gas does have small heating value. Diesel engines will not suffer such power loss, since they work on stratified mixtures and because of that you can introduce more wood gas to recover the power loss. You'd need to leave some small amount of diesel to be injected to the cylinders to ignite the wood gas.

Interested? One liter of petrol / gasoline can be replaced with 2.5 - 4 kg (5.5 - 9 lbs) of wood. How cool is that!