Thunderstorm Generator critics and supporters, side by side

Plain definition

What “hoax” would mean

A hoax is deliberate fakery. This site has no evidence about anyone’s intent and does not judge people.

What can be checked is narrower and more useful: what a meter read, and whether the stated explanation fits what is known about engines. That is the test this page uses.

Measured

The measured anchor: the Embry-Riddle thesis

A 2026 master’s (M.S.) thesis at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University built a Thunderstorm Generator retrofit and tested it. Fuel was weighed and timed. Exhaust was read with a five-gas analyzer.

On a small generator under load, with the water-vapor (cold-gas) system on, fuel use fell from 35.27 to 31.86 milliliters per minute, a 9.67% drop. On a 1989 Chevrolet Blazer road loop, fuel economy was about 8.7% better, but the retrofit covered only four of eight cylinders and the retrofit runs had high winds.

In an idle test of the small generator, carbon monoxide (CO) fell by an average of 34%. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) and oxygen showed no significant change, which the thesis says contradicts the inventor’s claims. Hydrocarbons showed no significant correlation.

The thesis says it “did not conclusively validate” the inventor’s fuel and emissions claims, that its results fit “a modest positive effect,” and that the system “should not be entirely dismissed.”

Inventor claim

The supporters’ view

In the inventor’s model, bubbles collapsing in the bubbler form tiny plasmoids. In the final unit, exhaust heat and these plasmoids interact, and carbon in the exhaust is converted into oxygen and other elements. The device is designed to use more of the fuel instead of sending heat and carbon out the tailpipe.

Thunderstorm.tech, the seller’s site, reports much larger numbers than the thesis: for example, carbon dioxide down by up to 99.9% and oxygen up sharply in tests on three continents. The thesis author notes that the original creators reported fuel gains of about 20%.

These are claims by the inventor’s side. Our page on other tests shows who ran each one.

Outside commentary

The Skeptoid critique

Brian Dunning (Skeptoid, December 16, 2025) makes several technical points. First, he says an ordinary ultraviolet (UV) bulb gives off light that is too weak to ionize air, so the first chamber does not ionize anything. Second, he says the cavitation behind plasmoid formation needs about 80–100 pounds per square inch (psi) of suction, while an engine’s vacuum is only about 4–10 psi.

Third, he says the last chamber is a plain heat exchanger that warms the intake air. He concludes the whole device is an exhaust heat riser plus water injection, which engineers have known about for over 100 years, and that it only suits simple carbureted engines.

He also writes that small gains in fuel efficiency or exhaust cleanliness are “probably true,” as long as they are small, and that the device works best with the engine at light load, when engine vacuum is highest. He adds that CO₂ is not reduced.

Plain definition

Where the two sides overlap

The thesis and the critic agree on several things. Both describe heat recovery from the exhaust and added water vapor as the working parts. Both treat any fuel gain as modest. Both say CO₂ does not fall.

They differ on what the heat-and-vapor effect is called. The inventor’s side says plasmoids. The critic says it is ordinary physics. The thesis did not test for plasmoids, so it cannot settle that point. They also differ on load: the thesis says the bubbler works only when the engine is loaded and is ineffective at idle, while the critic says engine suction is highest at idle and the device fades under load. Tests across several loads would help.

Plain definition

What would settle it

The thesis author recommends more testing with a corrected design, all cylinders covered, calm weather, and better instruments, plus third-party validation by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.

A strong test would also switch each part on and off one at a time. That would show whether the water vapor, the heat exchange, or something else accounts for the change. This site will add such results if they are published.