[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

RedDevil,
You bring up the problem one runs into in research using the web. There is overwhelming data ...(snip indigestion)...
That is why I propose we do our own research. ...(snip dung)...
You must remember that science also has it's stigmas and mental pitfalls. Academia may not see the value in HHO research and that is understandable. But, there is talk of research into hydrogen seeding effects since this could be valuable to HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition ) research. ..(etc.)...
Since academia does not provide us a clear picture of HHO, we must make our own postulations based on good, clear science and then test accordingly.

I see an overwhelming lack of data, rather.
The properties of oxyhydrogen gas are well known (see the Encyclopedia Brittannica link) and it is obvious that mixing such a highly explosive gas with the intake air does have an effect on the combustion process.

What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.
If it is out there I could not find it. Nor can you, apparently.
Don't tell me you can, just show what you found.

Sure, science does have its pitfalls but science does its best to avoid them, so much so that the occasional glitch makes the headlines.
So science is stigmatized and therefore does not recognize the benefit of oxyhydrogen?
Scientists simply refuse to get involved with a device that can seriously reduce fuel consumption, for no reason at all?
Who would believe that?

I rather believe that scientists do understand the process and when they test it they find the expected result namely no usable positive effect.
Élaborating the obvious does not get attention, that's why it is so hard to find.
Ìf science does not cut it nothing does.