Someone smell burnt hair???
AltFuel Supplemental Hydrogen Generator
- Thread starter Esther
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Your material? That's hilarious.
The only thing new about HHO is the name "HHO". Snake gas rebranded.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Threads
- 158
- Messages
- 2,974
- Location
- Greenfield, MA
- Website
- thecarpentryway.blogspot.com
"What critics of skepticim do not seem to understand is that skepticism is not the same thing as cynicism. Show me verifiable, testable, repeatable proof of the cause/effect of any of the remedies/treatments OTHER THAN ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, and then you can say your "belief" in those things is grounded in science. Science is merely a method, a process, not a set of beliefs. Unless and untill chiropractic, accupuncture (regardless of its age), etc. are empiracally shown to have actual efficacy, you're deep into placebo territory and wishful thinking. Such is the case with HHO."
I do not confuse skepticism with cynicism, though it would appear the two often complement each other nicely and are used hand in hand by skeptics. I appreciate that you do not accept my anecdotal evidence as to my experiences with acupuncture and chiropractic. I am not interested in advocating for those disciplines -only wanted to bring forth my experience, which is valid for me.
I might add that I've also had ineffective chiropractic treatments, and treatments that made me worse. Still, if I throw my back out, i do not head to the regular doctor, since all i get there, armed to the teeth as they may be with science, is drug prescriptions and possibly advice about surgery. No thanks.
"It's not the same as a criticsm of practicality; your horse and buggy example is poor as an analogy. Few people back then ever said: "cars are a theoretical, ununproven technology...they're snake oil", rather they said "who the hell needs that ugly, loud, stink monstrosity?!" Not the same thing..."
Agreed. Those were not the best analogies to use. Perhaps better ones would have been:
-Galileo's belief in heliocentric theory
-Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift
-skepticism in the 1800's concerning rocks falling from the sky (i.e. meteorites)
-Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygiene in the 1840's were ridiculed by a skeptical medical establishment
Now, the usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo", etc, is to say, for example "But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." (this does stretch the meaning of "laugh at" however...)
In most cases however, skeptics do not see an occasional error as a flaw in skepticism -- they maintain that skepticism is a self-correcting system, and that with substantial evidence, any true skeptic would be more than happy to change his/her mind.
However, in history, this has not always been the case -- what is "substantial evidence" to one skeptic may be dismissed as trash by another.
In science, the historian Thomas Kuhn attempted to create a model of how radical theory and world-view change occurred, what he called a "paradigm shift." Because of the often flexible nature of scientific observations, the illusive quality of nature, and the humanity of the actors involved, scientific change has rarely been a simple process of logical proofs and acceptances. The physicist Max Planck gestured towards the often personal aspect of scientific change:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents [...] What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."
"As for accupuncture being 3000 years old and therefore 'there's gotta be something legit to it'...well prayer is at least as old as humans (H. sapiens sapiens) are, and that's not science either (and also is proven to work--through a reduction in cortisol, among other stress hormones, i.e. placebo effect)."
It could be. Belief is a powerful thing, as you noted in your comment about prayer. That said, I went in for an acupuncture treatment the first time with no preconception or faith that it would work (after everything else i had tried did not work, why would I have reason to believe in a different therapy?). It did help me considerably however, though the effect was not immediate, and that effect seemed to last for about two years. Again, you may dismiss such comments as anecdotal of course. I'll continue to move along with my beliefs however, as they have served me well, for the most part, so far in life.
I do agree that just because something has been around a while does not mean it has some scientific basis or is justified simply because of that. However, what is unknown to science now might not be unknown at some future time. Scientists are spending billions of dollars right now on massive particle accelerators trying to find the most obscure things, based on theories that may prove completely wrong (or not). The exact same sort of people, mindset-wise were spending years of their lives in the 1500s looking to develop gold from lead. Another example would be phrenology, which was an accepted scientific discipline at one time.
What does a skeptic do when a belief they have come to by rigorous empirical testing, like Newtonian physics, is shown later to be not quite true by some later development?
"Narrow-minded? Hardly. Fearful of new things? Um...I run B100. Damn near everything about me is fringe (just ask around), it's just that I do look before I leap... With HHO, I looked, and I saw a big fat pit with a sign in front of it that said "Suckers, jump here".
Fair enough - my remark about narrow-mindedness was in reference to your comments, not to you as a person or in regards to your lifestyle, subjects to which i have no knowledge. I regret you took my comments so personally.
"Oh, as for your experience with a Chiropractor and your back...that's great, but while it may have been a chiropractor who worked on you, what you got was physical therapy, a proven science, NOT CHIROPRACTIC. Go read about it..."
Huh? I've been to plenty of physical therapists, and what they do is not at all the same as what the chiropractor does - other than in the sense of 'physical'. Yes, they do actually touch you, unlike the regular doctors I've been exposed to. Some chiropractors physically manipulate your bones around, and some use little sprung tapper dealies to hit points on your body. i was, you might be thrilled to hear, skeptical about the tapper method, however it seemed to help me a great deal regardless.
I might add, that i have been to see physical therapists who have been trained in chiropractic methods - called orthopractic physiotherapists - and i would say that there one has the best of both worlds. Can I prove it with double-blind studies? No, and I'm okay if that isn't enough for the skeptics out there. I'm quite fine with the results. You see, it's the results that count for me less than theoretical concerns of a need for proof or credibility from others.
"As for your allergies, you do know that people can suddenly get them, and people can suddenly lose them...with or without any treatment."
I sure am aware of that (what's your point?) A good friend of mine developed allergies in his mid-30's. Interestingly, he finds that the symptoms completely disappear when he fasts for several days, and also reported good results from acupuncture, which he received in Taiwan. allergies are quite mysterious, and one thing that I have been convinced of, through 30 years of personal experience, is that western allopathy has no answers. The last time i saw a regular allergy doctor he told me the best move was for me to move to another city(!). In short, he had no answers.
So, maybe in time western science will develop some effective treatments for allergies other than drugs, nasal cauterizations, and so forth, but until then, guess what - I remain skeptical.
As for HHO, I would say i am a bit skeptical myself, however I personally would stop short of using the sort of derisive comments that I have seen here in regards to it, and other things. Obviously it upsets you quite a bit to think that others might be taken in by 'snake oil salesmen' - there is something interesting in the intensity of your response and need to mock HHO, along with the 'tar with the same brush' all the other things that don't meet your skeptical standards. If you think HHO is twaddle, nothing but a joke, then fine, leave it at that.
I do not confuse skepticism with cynicism, though it would appear the two often complement each other nicely and are used hand in hand by skeptics. I appreciate that you do not accept my anecdotal evidence as to my experiences with acupuncture and chiropractic. I am not interested in advocating for those disciplines -only wanted to bring forth my experience, which is valid for me.
I might add that I've also had ineffective chiropractic treatments, and treatments that made me worse. Still, if I throw my back out, i do not head to the regular doctor, since all i get there, armed to the teeth as they may be with science, is drug prescriptions and possibly advice about surgery. No thanks.
"It's not the same as a criticsm of practicality; your horse and buggy example is poor as an analogy. Few people back then ever said: "cars are a theoretical, ununproven technology...they're snake oil", rather they said "who the hell needs that ugly, loud, stink monstrosity?!" Not the same thing..."
Agreed. Those were not the best analogies to use. Perhaps better ones would have been:
-Galileo's belief in heliocentric theory
-Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift
-skepticism in the 1800's concerning rocks falling from the sky (i.e. meteorites)
-Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygiene in the 1840's were ridiculed by a skeptical medical establishment
Now, the usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo", etc, is to say, for example "But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." (this does stretch the meaning of "laugh at" however...)
In most cases however, skeptics do not see an occasional error as a flaw in skepticism -- they maintain that skepticism is a self-correcting system, and that with substantial evidence, any true skeptic would be more than happy to change his/her mind.
However, in history, this has not always been the case -- what is "substantial evidence" to one skeptic may be dismissed as trash by another.
In science, the historian Thomas Kuhn attempted to create a model of how radical theory and world-view change occurred, what he called a "paradigm shift." Because of the often flexible nature of scientific observations, the illusive quality of nature, and the humanity of the actors involved, scientific change has rarely been a simple process of logical proofs and acceptances. The physicist Max Planck gestured towards the often personal aspect of scientific change:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents [...] What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."
"As for accupuncture being 3000 years old and therefore 'there's gotta be something legit to it'...well prayer is at least as old as humans (H. sapiens sapiens) are, and that's not science either (and also is proven to work--through a reduction in cortisol, among other stress hormones, i.e. placebo effect)."
It could be. Belief is a powerful thing, as you noted in your comment about prayer. That said, I went in for an acupuncture treatment the first time with no preconception or faith that it would work (after everything else i had tried did not work, why would I have reason to believe in a different therapy?). It did help me considerably however, though the effect was not immediate, and that effect seemed to last for about two years. Again, you may dismiss such comments as anecdotal of course. I'll continue to move along with my beliefs however, as they have served me well, for the most part, so far in life.
I do agree that just because something has been around a while does not mean it has some scientific basis or is justified simply because of that. However, what is unknown to science now might not be unknown at some future time. Scientists are spending billions of dollars right now on massive particle accelerators trying to find the most obscure things, based on theories that may prove completely wrong (or not). The exact same sort of people, mindset-wise were spending years of their lives in the 1500s looking to develop gold from lead. Another example would be phrenology, which was an accepted scientific discipline at one time.
What does a skeptic do when a belief they have come to by rigorous empirical testing, like Newtonian physics, is shown later to be not quite true by some later development?
"Narrow-minded? Hardly. Fearful of new things? Um...I run B100. Damn near everything about me is fringe (just ask around), it's just that I do look before I leap... With HHO, I looked, and I saw a big fat pit with a sign in front of it that said "Suckers, jump here".
Fair enough - my remark about narrow-mindedness was in reference to your comments, not to you as a person or in regards to your lifestyle, subjects to which i have no knowledge. I regret you took my comments so personally.
"Oh, as for your experience with a Chiropractor and your back...that's great, but while it may have been a chiropractor who worked on you, what you got was physical therapy, a proven science, NOT CHIROPRACTIC. Go read about it..."
Huh? I've been to plenty of physical therapists, and what they do is not at all the same as what the chiropractor does - other than in the sense of 'physical'. Yes, they do actually touch you, unlike the regular doctors I've been exposed to. Some chiropractors physically manipulate your bones around, and some use little sprung tapper dealies to hit points on your body. i was, you might be thrilled to hear, skeptical about the tapper method, however it seemed to help me a great deal regardless.
I might add, that i have been to see physical therapists who have been trained in chiropractic methods - called orthopractic physiotherapists - and i would say that there one has the best of both worlds. Can I prove it with double-blind studies? No, and I'm okay if that isn't enough for the skeptics out there. I'm quite fine with the results. You see, it's the results that count for me less than theoretical concerns of a need for proof or credibility from others.
"As for your allergies, you do know that people can suddenly get them, and people can suddenly lose them...with or without any treatment."
I sure am aware of that (what's your point?) A good friend of mine developed allergies in his mid-30's. Interestingly, he finds that the symptoms completely disappear when he fasts for several days, and also reported good results from acupuncture, which he received in Taiwan. allergies are quite mysterious, and one thing that I have been convinced of, through 30 years of personal experience, is that western allopathy has no answers. The last time i saw a regular allergy doctor he told me the best move was for me to move to another city(!). In short, he had no answers.
So, maybe in time western science will develop some effective treatments for allergies other than drugs, nasal cauterizations, and so forth, but until then, guess what - I remain skeptical.
As for HHO, I would say i am a bit skeptical myself, however I personally would stop short of using the sort of derisive comments that I have seen here in regards to it, and other things. Obviously it upsets you quite a bit to think that others might be taken in by 'snake oil salesmen' - there is something interesting in the intensity of your response and need to mock HHO, along with the 'tar with the same brush' all the other things that don't meet your skeptical standards. If you think HHO is twaddle, nothing but a joke, then fine, leave it at that.
Wow, I may have met my verbosity match! Warning, this post contains many quotes and a bathtub full of my own diarrhea of the mouth...
Few would argue that mainstream medicine is naked or pure science or even a particularly good application of science--few things are more boogered up with economics, regulations, ethics, corruption, and other perverted influences. We had homebirths for our two kids, because the practice of OB/GYN is horribly twisted. Some medicine is fabulous science, like functional MRI and radiology...though still plenty unduly influenced by bias-causing outside pressures and limitations.
ba-dum-dum. Sorry, bad joke.
Insufficient relief? Yes. Side-effects? Yes. No answers? Hardly.
Few would argue that mainstream medicine is naked or pure science or even a particularly good application of science--few things are more boogered up with economics, regulations, ethics, corruption, and other perverted influences. We had homebirths for our two kids, because the practice of OB/GYN is horribly twisted. Some medicine is fabulous science, like functional MRI and radiology...though still plenty unduly influenced by bias-causing outside pressures and limitations.
Hey man, I'm digging the historical references, and know well of what you speak, and all valid citations, but nonetheless s***ty (or at least badly flawed) analogies, on several counts. HHO asks us to discount well-tested and extremely well-known areas of science, not just dogma, but as close to "proven" as science will permit, limited pretty much only by the very definition of science itself. Cars running on water, with everything we know about molecular chemistry, simply is in opposition to not just established mainstream accepted physics and chemistry, but has been directly disproven, over and over again. Increasing a vehicle's efficiency with self-generated Brown's gas is not merely a tweak of known physics or a fresh perspective, but rather a total departure from a view formed from centuries of accumulated knowledge. Those examples you gave were dealing with fields either in their infancy, or in fields stymied severely by paranoia, politics or economics. HHO is in a different environemnt...It's not that we don't know much about controlled combustion or how to improve cars radically, it is that the automakers are constricted by economics and corrupted by the petrocartels. Make no mistake about it, we absolutely can make much better vehicles and should, but we don't, and for reasons that quickly get into conspiracy theory.
This comment qualifies your understanding. Not a platitude man...I'm really relieved that you appear rational and intelligent. Because I am a douche nozzle liberal, I actually feel shame, disappointment, even mortified when I see people just be so gullible, dim or so foolish that they really need chaparoning through life. Homeopathy, I must say, is the most laughable and egregious example. I am angry and sick that it is a multi-billion industry.
Yes. You're right, but it is not relevant to the "debate" about HHO systems.
True, but the changes are almost always incremental, few modern examples exist of total paradigm shifts in well-worn areas of science (i.e. not astrophysics, not neurophisiology, not materials even.)
You certainly need no permission from me. Let's just say that I'm more orthodox in my Sciencism than you are.
Dude, those were the scientific dark ages. We even thought that black people were humans...................................
ba-dum-dum. Sorry, bad joke.
They get all butt hurt, of course. But Newtonian physics not quite true? No, totally true, from top to bottom and side to side, but is limited in its scope. Later insights provided exceptions to or circumstances beyond normal human experience and observation. Limitations to do not constitute disproofs of...
Zealous wording does not constitute being butt hurt or even defensive, my brother, it's as cool as the other side of my pillow (can you tell the shot of whiskey just hit me???)
do and purpost to do are not the same thing. A chiropractor may crack joints, massage, all sorts of physical pressures, corrections, whatever you want to call it, but chiropractic, by definition, is the belief that most, if not all illnesses are caused by or given an opportunity to manifest as a result of misalignments of the spine. Your back messed up? Go to someone who will work on your back (and a chiropractor may qualify). Got leprosy? Go to a chiropractor, and see how willing that fxxxer is to align your spine to cure you of the "limb dropper".
Groovy. Lots of little things come into play, and you have a system that working, so sticking with it makes total sense. Perpetual motion machines, however, do not exist. A unicorn can NOT be grazing in my front yard when I awake tomorrow.
Oh bitch...Benedryl has no effect on you? NO HELP, from Claritin?
Insufficient relief? Yes. Side-effects? Yes. No answers? Hardly.
No, suspicious and wary of, and rightfully so. But listen man, you take a sick person, you monitor their reaction to a given drug, and you can track the biochemical pathways from ingestion to response, not so with chiro... accu... YOU MAY HATE the drug, but the drug has measurable, nearly universal effects.
Born to argue, been hit with that stick...family trait.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Threads
- 158
- Messages
- 2,974
- Location
- Greenfield, MA
- Website
- thecarpentryway.blogspot.com
I appreciate your detailed response Tofudebeast.
You wrote, "Oh *****...Benedryl has no effect on you? NO HELP, from Claritin? Insufficient relief? Yes. Side-effects? Yes. No answers? Hardly."
Speaking from personal experience, whether they are 'answers' or not depends upon how severe the allergy is and how long it persists. For the person who suffers from the occasional week or two of hay fever per year, these sorts of medications may well prove to work sufficiently well.
in my case, I have found that with these medications (and I've tried them all), the effect of the medication is often nearly as bad as the allergy symptoms. Further, the efficacy of many of these medications wears off with extended use. I'm trying a new one right now, Ceterizine Hydrochloride. The first pill I took worked excellently, lasting some 30 hours. The second one worked for most of a day. And the third one i took had minimal effect. So, to my way of thinking, this is no answer.
As for HHO, in my original posting above, I made no reference to it. I came upon this thread, looked initially at the last page and came upon your comment at the bottom, to which I responded. i haven't read any other pages of this thread as of yet.
You wrote, "Dude, those were the scientific dark ages."
And I suspect that if our civilization continues another 150-200 years, people then will look back at today as being a scientific dark age. It is all relative after all, and these various avenues of inquiry exist in a continuum.
Not so very long ago, the Nazis were highly interested in Eugenics and used it to justify ideas of Aryan superiority; further they used some of the most up-to-date scientific methods in sorting and moving Jews into the death camps. IBM helped out with punch card tabulating machines, precursors of modern computers, to assist the Third Reich. it was all very 'reasonable', 'modern' and 'rational' to both the perpetrators and many of the participants in the 'final solution'. I'm sure many Nazis were skeptical of the idea that blacks and Jews might be their equals in any way, and used up to date 'science' to justify their world view.
Excuse the slight wander off topic.
The difficulty science has, given it's bedrock position in modern 'rational' western culture, is that it is all but impenetrable to outside laymen - and I include political decision makers in this category. How is the average person supposed to have a clear understanding of such topics as climate change, nuclear power, etc, when even the 'eggheads' seem to disagree? Given a lack of specialist knowledge, the average person is left dependent upon who they choose to believe - - and those people, given the difficulty of conveying the technical nuances that support their reasoning, have primary recourse to little else other than emotional appeal, fear-mongering, etc. A modern example: "Drill baby, drill!"
The point here is, when I come upon a discussion on HHO, which I have relatively little background upon which to make an informed decision, I look to see what people with more (apparent) knowledge might have to say. And when I read derisive and bullying comments by people claiming to have 'the answers', my tendency is to discount their comments, regardless of whether they might be right or not. You may wish to consider your " Born to argue" mode in light of your aims to guide the people who have "a substandard understanding of science (physics, anatomy, physiology, etc.) eager for relief (medical, financial, etc.) who get taken for a ride by a predatory charlatan". With all due consideration, your aims are fine, but your way of trying to 'guide' people might not be serving your aims so well.
Finally, "Your back messed up? Go to someone who will work on your back (and a chiropractor may qualify). Got leprosy? Go to a chiropractor, and see how willing that ****er is to align your spine to cure you of the "limb dropper"."
Do you speak from personal experience?
How many lepers do you reckon go to a chiropractor seeking a cure? I hadn't heard of such a thing - I must remain skeptical.
Anyhow, I will curtail my comments at this point, as this discussion is clearly venturing into the 'chat' category. I appreciated the interchange, and will strive not to be led astray by the charlatans you warn about.
You wrote, "Oh *****...Benedryl has no effect on you? NO HELP, from Claritin? Insufficient relief? Yes. Side-effects? Yes. No answers? Hardly."
Speaking from personal experience, whether they are 'answers' or not depends upon how severe the allergy is and how long it persists. For the person who suffers from the occasional week or two of hay fever per year, these sorts of medications may well prove to work sufficiently well.
in my case, I have found that with these medications (and I've tried them all), the effect of the medication is often nearly as bad as the allergy symptoms. Further, the efficacy of many of these medications wears off with extended use. I'm trying a new one right now, Ceterizine Hydrochloride. The first pill I took worked excellently, lasting some 30 hours. The second one worked for most of a day. And the third one i took had minimal effect. So, to my way of thinking, this is no answer.
As for HHO, in my original posting above, I made no reference to it. I came upon this thread, looked initially at the last page and came upon your comment at the bottom, to which I responded. i haven't read any other pages of this thread as of yet.
You wrote, "Dude, those were the scientific dark ages."
And I suspect that if our civilization continues another 150-200 years, people then will look back at today as being a scientific dark age. It is all relative after all, and these various avenues of inquiry exist in a continuum.
Not so very long ago, the Nazis were highly interested in Eugenics and used it to justify ideas of Aryan superiority; further they used some of the most up-to-date scientific methods in sorting and moving Jews into the death camps. IBM helped out with punch card tabulating machines, precursors of modern computers, to assist the Third Reich. it was all very 'reasonable', 'modern' and 'rational' to both the perpetrators and many of the participants in the 'final solution'. I'm sure many Nazis were skeptical of the idea that blacks and Jews might be their equals in any way, and used up to date 'science' to justify their world view.
Excuse the slight wander off topic.
The difficulty science has, given it's bedrock position in modern 'rational' western culture, is that it is all but impenetrable to outside laymen - and I include political decision makers in this category. How is the average person supposed to have a clear understanding of such topics as climate change, nuclear power, etc, when even the 'eggheads' seem to disagree? Given a lack of specialist knowledge, the average person is left dependent upon who they choose to believe - - and those people, given the difficulty of conveying the technical nuances that support their reasoning, have primary recourse to little else other than emotional appeal, fear-mongering, etc. A modern example: "Drill baby, drill!"
The point here is, when I come upon a discussion on HHO, which I have relatively little background upon which to make an informed decision, I look to see what people with more (apparent) knowledge might have to say. And when I read derisive and bullying comments by people claiming to have 'the answers', my tendency is to discount their comments, regardless of whether they might be right or not. You may wish to consider your " Born to argue" mode in light of your aims to guide the people who have "a substandard understanding of science (physics, anatomy, physiology, etc.) eager for relief (medical, financial, etc.) who get taken for a ride by a predatory charlatan". With all due consideration, your aims are fine, but your way of trying to 'guide' people might not be serving your aims so well.
Finally, "Your back messed up? Go to someone who will work on your back (and a chiropractor may qualify). Got leprosy? Go to a chiropractor, and see how willing that ****er is to align your spine to cure you of the "limb dropper"."
Do you speak from personal experience?
How many lepers do you reckon go to a chiropractor seeking a cure? I hadn't heard of such a thing - I must remain skeptical.Anyhow, I will curtail my comments at this point, as this discussion is clearly venturing into the 'chat' category. I appreciated the interchange, and will strive not to be led astray by the charlatans you warn about.
Last edited:
Wow. You're right. I'm not particularly good at online diplomacy and tact, it's a strange medium for communication. I assure you, of the friends I know who entertain the notion of HHO or homeopathy, etc. I don't call them suckers or fools to their face. At most, I'll tease them a little. Here, it's just too tempting to flame the 'tards. I'll keep in mind that it is being regarded by some as caustic or off-putting and not as funny as intended.
My experience with chiropractors is second hand, as my mother ended up having cervical spinal fusion as a result of the "adjustments" a chiropractor made to her neck. I was given a book a long time ago by a friend, I can't recall the title, that delved deeply into the theories of the Palmers and their notions about spinal subluxation. It was just goofy, paranoid, and irrational, the theory, not the book.
My experience with chiropractors is second hand, as my mother ended up having cervical spinal fusion as a result of the "adjustments" a chiropractor made to her neck. I was given a book a long time ago by a friend, I can't recall the title, that delved deeply into the theories of the Palmers and their notions about spinal subluxation. It was just goofy, paranoid, and irrational, the theory, not the book.
Here's the closest thing I have found yet to what you are describing (posting up more than anecdotal evidence).
YouTube - moggywan's Channel
The test vehicle setup video is fairly telling. He's essentially setup a secondary tank with calibration marks for a US Gallon, and will end up using that to test mileage with that gallon while using the injection setup.
In a classic "six degrees of separation" moment, a good friend of mine works with a guy who has a friend who knows a guy.... you get the idea.. Anyway, that's how the vids made it onto my radar.
I'm still sitting on the fence here, but my take on it is like this:
Engines do not run at the theoretical efficiency of either the fuel they are burning or the cycle upon which they are based.
Yes, you will not recover the energy it took to create the supplemental gas by burning that gas alone; that is not the question. The question is this: Will the addition of that result in an overall increase in the efficiency of the entire system?
Does air+fuel+hho give you enough of a boost to counteract the mechanical work needed to supply the electrical energy to produce the supplemental gas? That's poorly worded, but it kinda gets the point across.
Let's take this another way:
A 200-W electrical load can produce a 0.4 km/l reduction in efficiency
Fuel economy in automobiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(thats 0.940858333 miles per gallon according to google)
So, if people are running a 10A load by using one of these generators, that is less than the number above in a 12v system (10A at 12v should be approximately 120W).
So, let's be conservative and say that adding a generator is a 200w load (assuming no additional electrical input like regen breaking or solar or whatever) and let's round that up to a nice even number and say that the above load equates to a 1MPG decrease in fuel efficiency.
From what I understand, 1MPG change is less than is obtained by doing things like properly inflating tires, moderating driving habits, etc.
If the load is less (I have seen numbers ranging from 4 to 10A for these systems) then the cross-over point is even easier to reach.
SO:
The question becomes this:
Does the addition of the gas (NOT THE GAS ITSELF) provide enough change in the system (cooling of intake air resulting in increased density, additional combustibles) result in enough of an increase in burn of the primary fuel to equate to a greater than 1 MPG change in efficiency?
I do not pretend to know the answer, but I am certain the answer is worth knowing.
Show us some peer reviewed, objective, controlled scientific experiments where minute quantities of H2 from an external source [like a tank of H2 gas] produces the improvements in combustion efficiency you're claiming.
Sorry, I was not clear enough. I attempted to make no claims, only to pose the question in a neutral way as I feel the theory warrants experimentation.
Luckily for me you are more scientific and rephrased my question into a nice tidy requirement for the experiment. (That's not meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds. I'm totally serious.)
A valid experiment, although should it not use the O as well as the H2?
Peer reviewed I will probably not ever be able to provide, as I do not claim to be the peer of anyone with a scientific background or degree - but I am currently trying to arrange a meet with folks who are working on these and will bring up your idea.
I want to test the theory, not make wild claims. Moggywan hasn't gotten that far yet in his vids, but he's built what I think is the closest thing to a measurable test vehicle I have seen to date.
Yup, I was agreeing with you. Until objective scientific studies are presented this is the stuff of hearsay and smells very much like a scam.
mike
82bj42 1st project
how well does this system work in the winter? Will frozen water still produce hydrogen?
..everything I've read say's the heat generated melts any frozen water fairly quick..
Hi all,
I found my video referred to on your site so started reading, love Tofudamonkeys posts!
Bagh33ra lives in Oakland, I live in Concord and would be more than happy to host a few of you at my place and show you some HHO snake oil units I have built.
In fact I think the thing to do would be for me to build and install a generator on the monkeys vehicle if he is local he could then do some tests for himself. wonder how objective he could be?
There are a few scammers out there selling substandard even dangerous equipment, but as I don't have anything for sale and what I am doing is for my own curiosity I guess I escape that label.
Oh by the way, HHO insn't produced by electrolosis!
Ray,
Concord CA
925-300-7862
No it won't unless your vehicle is puking 20 to 28 percent unburned fuel out the tailpipe. You're being scammed. You might as well tear your money into little pieces and flush it down the toilet for all the improvement you think you might see. But hey it's your money to piss away.
You got that right.
The only molecule which features two H's and an O is water (H2O) and it ain't produced by electrolysis.
Showing people bubbling jars isn't what we're looking for. We're looking for proof these things work.
Do you have any verified results?
.
Last edited:
OOPS
Apparently I cant attach PDF's to a post.
The effects of supplemental hydrogen in SI engines PDF Print E-mail
Written by Moggywan
Saturday, 06 December 2008 02:11
I found a mention of some papers that were read at an engineering symposium in Chicago in 1989
As I thought they might be useful to the HHO comunity I tried to research them, eventually I got in touch with the author in Israel at Ben Gurian University.
He was kind enough to send me copies of the papers, they are extremely interesting, they document experiments using a four cylinder jeep to show the effects of "hydrogen enrichment" as they called it.
The bottom line is they proved 20-23 percent fuel economy increases with 2-6 percent hydrogen addition.
Also noted were indications of new effects like the release of "high active free radicals" in the vicinity of the spark!
All the math is there along with methodologies, references etc.
I hope you enjoy reading them and find them of some help, if only that you can point to these as real world proof provided by "real scientists" that this stuff is not just snake oil.
If someone can tell me how to attach PDF's here or change the format I will share this info
or you can email me at kodawolf555@yahoo.com and I will send you the files.
Cheers,
Moggy.
Apparently I cant attach PDF's to a post.
The effects of supplemental hydrogen in SI engines PDF Print E-mail
Written by Moggywan
Saturday, 06 December 2008 02:11
I found a mention of some papers that were read at an engineering symposium in Chicago in 1989
As I thought they might be useful to the HHO comunity I tried to research them, eventually I got in touch with the author in Israel at Ben Gurian University.
He was kind enough to send me copies of the papers, they are extremely interesting, they document experiments using a four cylinder jeep to show the effects of "hydrogen enrichment" as they called it.
The bottom line is they proved 20-23 percent fuel economy increases with 2-6 percent hydrogen addition.
Also noted were indications of new effects like the release of "high active free radicals" in the vicinity of the spark!
All the math is there along with methodologies, references etc.
I hope you enjoy reading them and find them of some help, if only that you can point to these as real world proof provided by "real scientists" that this stuff is not just snake oil.
If someone can tell me how to attach PDF's here or change the format I will share this info
or you can email me at kodawolf555@yahoo.com and I will send you the files.
Cheers,
Moggy.
Good find, let me know if you can link up that document.
There is no dispute that hydrogen can make a different. The dispute is that a jar of water with a couple of wires produces next to no hydrogen and the hydrogen it does produce costs more power than any improvement can return.
2-6% hydrogen (assuming that's 2-6% by volume of the air the engine ingests) is a huge amount of hydrogen.
A 4 litre engine at 2000rpm can consume 65 litres of air per second.
6% of that is 14,000 litres of hydrogen per hour. Less at part throttle of course.
If he's talking 6% by mass, then that's even more hydrogen needed.
Eran Sher papers
One experiment describes setting RPM, adjusting timing for max torque and then adding hydrogen while reducing fuel but maintaining torque figures, BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) is then measured.
I take this to mean 2-6 % of the gas only.
I still need some advice on converting a pdf to say a jpeg so I can send you the info.
Ray.
One experiment describes setting RPM, adjusting timing for max torque and then adding hydrogen while reducing fuel but maintaining torque figures, BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) is then measured.
I take this to mean 2-6 % of the gas only.
I still need some advice on converting a pdf to say a jpeg so I can send you the info.
Ray.