Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
But I know there are many that put down this system without their own testing as well.
|
Because the hho proposition doesn't make sense, there is no consistent theory and when disciplined folks who document what they do and how they measure things try it, it fails. You take it on heresay that it works. I haven't gone unicorn hunting either, life is too short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
...it seems that there is a 50/50 mix of lovers and haters of this...
|
I seriously doubt that, you can blame the scammers for the majority of the "lovers" of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
Granted I can't answer your every question because with 1 answer comes 10 more questions.
|
If an answer creates more questions then it isn't much of an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
At some point its just an attack waiting for one of those answers to have fault. Not that some of those questions are bad its just searching for fault instead of useful info.
|
You don't have the answers anyway, despite your erroneous reasoning of why I ask questions. You are willfully choosing not to answer direct questions, you will not enjoy trying to persuade anyone you have done a proper job of testing your experiment if you cannot answer simple questions. You will have to answer MANY questions, or do an outstanding job documenting the process and controls and demonstrating how you eliminated experimenter bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
The most definitive thing that would prove good testing procedures is if the people that use these say what design of unit was used, what water mix, the supporting accessories, the engine its feeding, the output and draw of the unit, then repeatable MPG test with and without. Also idling and emissions testing.
|
The ones that do all that fail, maybe the electrodes can't do their magic if anyone is watching too closely
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floordford
To me the reason i back the idea of electrolysis in vehicles is because there are those that have had positive results. And I feel that just like the light bulb this will be refined and there will be many failures along the way.
|
That is irresponsible, you only wish to disprove the "naysayers" as far as I can tell, yet you have no clue how you are going to do that when this experiment is not repeatable and thus a huge failure. You ignore hard work that people had to do because of an idea from scammers like Stan Meyers took root, and now you are actively promoting it, what a tremendous waste of effort.
But enough talk, you are making excuses to not answer basic questions at this point, and are continuing Stan Meyers legacy. You have anectodal (non-existant) support for your position. You don't want your faith in hho questioned, or to have to research those questions.
As a reasonably person, if you can demonstrate something reproduce-able, where all questions are answered that demonstrates a predictable gain from hho, I will of course reconsider my position.