[ChazInMT]

drrbc, OK now you've crossed a line.

1st, In science, we don't make claims of discovery and then challenge the world to prove you wrong. "I made a device that will make a semi truck get 13mpg fully loaded" "Oh Really, what is your proof for that?" "I don't need proof, you have to prove I didn't" (Said no respectable scientist, ever.)

So you telling us to prove why HHO is complete crap by hiring some professor or something is just idiocy on your part.

2nd. Having re-read all your stuff and been following you all along, you have not said anything that a person can hang their hat on with respect to HHO, you've never put up any facts that can be examined to be true or not, you simply spew non-sense about keeping in mind "Open" vs "Closed" thermodynamic systems, which if they were considered, I'm certain the difference between the 2 analyses open and closed would yield a difference so small as to be insignificant.

This has been talked about ad-nausium and here are the key facts as I see it.

1) NASA did some study thing piping straight Hydrogen into an ICE and found there could be like a 3% improvement in combustion efficiency. This was based on using a fairly large amount of Hydrogen (2-4% of total fuel), something no HHO generator could ever do.

2) It is indisputable that a machine cannot be built that disassociates hydrogen and oxygen in water using electrolysis then burns this fuel in an ICE to turn a generator to make more HHO with no gasoline used.

3) When looking at what a gasoline engine uses for fuel, it is primarily the hydrocarbon C8H18 Octane but it is a messy soup of other hydrocarbons (All variations of H & C) with tiny trace amounts of Sulfur, Nitrogen, & god knows what in even tinier tracier amounts mixed in. If there is Ethanol involved, then some Oxygen too. So basically, we run our cars on Hydrogen already. When mixed with the air (Oxygen and Nitrogen) it yields CO2 and H2O, roughly 1 gallon of water is produced for 1 Gallon of fuel burned and a bunch of CO2 as a gas. This is basic theory. No room to dispute this.

4) The amounts of water which are used to create HHO have always been touted as a very small amount by HHO advocates, show me where it says otherwise, but I'm guessing maybe a pint of water for every 600 miles or so. I have to believe a lot of that can be attributed to evaporation. But lets just say 1 pint per 600 miles gets used. So in a 25MPG car, that would be 24 gallons of gasoline consumed, so if 1/8th of a gallon of water is used per 24 gallons, this is roughly 1 part in 196 or .5%.

5) So it is incumbent on the HHO advocate to show how a .5% addition of hydrogen, which is already the fuel being burned, can result in a measurable increase in overall efficiency for a vehicle, given the amount of power (and it is Very Substantial) required to produce the HHO.

YOU go find a thermodynamics professor or chemical/petroleum engineer that will prove your point given the facts and pay him $250 to put his name on it and give us his phone number so we can check his credentials. That would be stepping up to the plate and putting your money where your mouth is.

Please state facts from now on that can be examined, and Rusty Lug Nut is not the guy you want in your corner, his ability to be floored and amazed by unscientific horse hockey knows no bounds. He's the guy you turn to when you don't want simple facts to stand in the way of a really bad idea. If you ask him he probably has a water ionizer under his sink and the plans for an antigravity device he is going to build someday when he gets the time & money together.

If you want to be swayed by facts, I just laid 25 of them out in simple terms. If you want to be floored and amazed by BS, yer on yer own.