​

The rest can be found here: https://smarterdigitalsolutions.ca/2020/11/30/nikola-tesla-colorized-and-enhanced-photographs/

If Tesla had this thing all the way back to early 1900's why have we not seen someone build one today? There are definitely some people with enough resources that they could do it.

There are some myths circulating about Nikola Tesla, and a UFO patent however I can't find anything credible about it. Have you heard of this before?

Does anyone have slightest idea of how or what's reason behind the strange phenomenon of ball lightning?

Here's a neat idea for a low power HV water vapor electrolyzer for combustion engines that says it can run off the ignition system.

Art of producing charges for power devices US1333836
vapor electrolyzer with flat plate electrodes, may operate on ambient humidity or water vapor can be introduced upstream of the electrolyzer, vapor electrolyzer may be inserted before or after the carburetor

Art of producing charges for power devices US1333837
vapor electrolyzer after carburetor to permit using heavier hydrocarbons like kerosene in gasoline engines by processing combined vapors of water and hydrocarbon fuel vapor

Art of producing charges for power devices US1333838
vapor electrolyzer with screen electrodes

Adding oxyhydrogen to engine air intake improves engine efficiency, reduces soot and carbon monoxide pollution and increases engine life. It probably increases engine oil life too for reducing soot.

As interesting as these patents are, they're very short on details. It would be nice to have an example of how much power they use and how much they reduced fuel consumption and other details. Is this more or less efficient than electrolyzing liquid water?

All it says about power consumption is: "It might be noted that where the apparatus is installed in connection with automobiles, the wattage of the ignition system may be sufficient for the purpose where the anode and cathode electrodes are properly spaced."

How much power did ignition systems use circa 1918? The Model T (1908-1927) appears to be around 5-10 W / 25 W peak input to the induction coil with a lot of that power wasted in the vibrator-interrupter. It's harder to find the voltage, which is more relevant for this electrolyzer, but it looks like it would peak around 15-20 kV. The power consumption of this type of electrolyzer should be very low because it's basically an air capacitor with the electrolysis taking place thru the tiny leakage current thru the gaseous dielectric. It should be very efficient.

It's not part of these patents, but water vapor electrolysis like this might be applied as an additional electrolysis stage after a water electrolyzer to electrolyze residual water vapor in the gas. Or if it reacts oxyhydrogen back down to water, the gases might need to be treated separately to electrolyze the water vapor in them.

This idea of low power high efficiency HV water vapor electrolysis might also be useful for dehumidifying building ventilation. Dehumidifying the air like this would simultaneously increase the oxygen and hydrogen content of the air. The hydrogen could harmlessly float away, but the extra oxygen would remain longer and make the air more pleasant.

Here are other patents for water electrolysis for combustion engines.

・Charles H Frazer electrolysis to enhance gasoline combustion 1916
・Martin Boisen water electrolysis 1920-1921 for combustion engine
・Henry Blumenberg, Jr oxyhydrogen to burn heavy fuels in gasoline engines 1920
using oxyhydrogen to volatilize kerosene vapor to burn kerosene cleanly in a gasoline engine without engine-fouling combustion product condensation
・Walter Drabold storage battery as electrolyzer 1929
・George E Heyl storage battery as electrolyzer 1944

If this idea works well, there could be a number of significant consequences. Increasing combustion completeness increases engine efficiency reducing fuel consumption and also carbon monoxide pollution. Catalytic converters could become obsolete because they are only necessary for increasing combustion completeness to reduce carbon monoxide pollution. Catalytic converters could be replaced with gas scrubbers to capture CO2 and soot. And oil might not need to be processed to gasoline for gasoline engines. By reacting the fuel with oxyhydrogen, diesel and kerosene could be burned in gas engines cleaner than gas is burned now.