Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
Somebody already did offer a million dollars.
Naturally, nobody really wanted to take up the challenge....
The one million dollar HHO challenge
There's some serious debunking on that site too. Nice read.
But, since unicorns are immortal, they will keep coming back.  |
I have had a back and forth with the site creator about all the loop holes he expects the challengers to jump through. I pointed out that the level of development and scrutiny the device would need would mean the million dollars would result in a loss in ROI ( return on investment) if the challenge was a goal. A company with a real product would not take the challenge due to the frivolous requirements. The market share would result in tremendous ROI. He pretty much said the rewriting of science would result in the Nobel Peace Prize paying you a million dollars and then the market would reward you with more. They never had a million dollars in escrow. He would not be able to pay.
I asked him to simplify the challenge to a POSITIVE gain - no matter how small. Forget the longevity testing and the emission requirements. The bottom line is, can the idea of hydrogen augmentation from on board electrolysis provide any sort of fuel savings. Yes, I know he is trying to stop the scammers. However, he says that HHO absolutely cannot work. As do most of the denizens of this forum. If that is the case, make it the first major step to test efficiency, and not some sideshow requirements for reliability and emissions. Those can be added later as an engineering exercise. There is enough simple instrumentation and procedure to perform accurate tests of efficiency.
Of course, there was the issue of credibility. I pointed out that errors on his site as well as a lack of depth showed him to have nothing more than a Wiki education. I asked him about combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency and all he could do was send links to "prove his point" when the links themselves were supportive of my position. It was obvious his understanding of the subject was minimal. My position you ask? My position is that there are enough loop holes in combustion theory to take advantage of a small amount of HHO and use it to a positive gain in efficiency. No, you cannot run your car on water. No, you will not double your mileage. But, you can see measurable gains under specific circumstances where simple logic tells you there should be a loss. I asked him about combustion theory - combustion precursors, radicals and their effect on long chain hydrocarbons in a high enthalpy situation. I pointed out to him that several companies are already on the market with working, tested and distributed products whose basis is hydrogen produced via on board electrolysis. He called my emails "babbling". He threw out several incorrect and incomplete "facts". He then gave up and said I was a "troll", and banned me from his sites.
I applaud his efforts to stop the scammers. Those elusively delusional people do hurt others. However, I do not like the fact he posed as an authority and expert when he is neither. The scammer sites are full of people like that. This site has them too - people who talk about things beyond their experience and understanding as if they were the last word on the subject.
So, I again say, make the challenge a simple one of fuel efficiency. It does not matter what the engine is. If it sees a reduction in specific fuel consumption, something must be working.
Of course, all of you know it will not work. Right?