You've repeatedly said it was I who doesn't know what I'm talking about, and not just referring to HHO.
But you've failed to find an erroneous post of mine and refute it.
I can find several posts where YOU were the cheerleader for nonsense.
Is it any different than encouraging someone to lick a frozen flagpole?
What would yet another HHO test prove that dozens or hundreds of previous HHO tests- including tests from people well above layman status- have not?
We HAVE the cannon- actually at least two cannons. One is called EM's proper testing guidelines; keeps people from making claims based on, say, one short fill:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html
Another is EM's guide for promoting fuel saving devices (aimed at product-pushers but works here too)
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html
(P.S. I've found this professional engineer's site useful:
http://web.archive.org/web/201011221...nfo/debunk.htm
And a forum where real engineers (as opposed to dopes like me) hang out:
http://www.eng-tips.com/gsearch.cfm?...-1&q=hho&sa=Go )
I can't speak for all of EM but I think in spite of all that has transpired, the door is open for anyone that has proof of HHO or any sort of combustion seeding tech that works. Proof being the key word.
But you're right- I've missed the point. Someone is going to have to spell it out for me again because I still don't get it. :/