|
I am satisfied that with the limited testing I have done NO definitive conclusion can be assumed. Further, I am not in any way arguing the basic laws of one or the other as seems to be always taken as "proof positive" that it works / can't work.
My contention is.........there must be a way to value for example, the benefit of less pollution. Another more direct way to assess value would be for someone who can burn lower octane fuel. Assuming a cost saving of "X" and deducting the cost of the extra load on the alternator from that factual cost saving, the difference would still be more than even. (assuming of course that fuel refill would be the same on hi/lo octane)
My system cost $ Can. 900.00 and I will admit that I will NEVER recover the cost because of the limited amount of driving I do. I have detailed all my reasons for opting to go for the install. The procedure I followed to find out if there is a difference in fuel use is outlined in my post. The entire reason for posting anything on this forum or other was/is to throw my hat into the mix. There are people out there who are much farther along in the development of HHO uses. The Koreans operate carbon cleaning machines, set up to just allow engines to be cleaned, just as one example. I could tell you that I had my own cleaning set up built at a cost of $900.00. If as a result of this cleaning the exhaust leaving my vehicle does not contain anywhere near the amount of soot normally spewed out of a diesel, nor the usual diesel stink, satisfied that expenditure is not a suggestion that every driver out there should do the same. I think that the experimentations with HHO will remain just that until someone creates a system which will be operational with little (very little) maintenance.
Meanwhile we will continue to muck along
Cheers..........Gus
|