How to Use Less Fuel (yet another HHO thread, lacking substantive evidence)

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Who Needs Data???

If someone comes up to me and says...."I'm gonna carve a place to sit in the middle of this huge rock, then I'm gonna roll it off a steep cliff and fly to Spain inside it." I'd be a bit skeptical, and I don't think I'd need data to figure out their adventure was going to be short lived.

Just look at the Facts here.

Ignorance get you no where, like in your example, a little data would help to make a real assessment; Is the bottom of the cliff in Spain?
There are a lot of things going on with a liquid fueled ICE, some of them may have an eff improvement with HHO, maybe even enough to counter out the alternator draw. A charge at home system would clearly improve mileage, as it would be adding fuel to the equation, not much fuel, but some. The question still remains; does HHO in an ICE improve FE more than the added BTUs?
I would not be surprised if it did, though i highly doubt the same would be true of a natural gas fueled engine.

[dcb]

you cannot support your belief that it helps, so why do you persist in believing in it? Why don't you look at the facts presented thus far?

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by dcb

you cannot support your belief that it helps, so why do you persist in believing in it? Why don't you look at the facts presented thus far?

Because the "fact presented thus far" leave a lot to be desired, and include someone showing a 0.6% gain with a rather crappy setup. 0.6% is rather low to say anything, but this thing should be showing a loss! And most other facts seem to lack reliance to this topic.

You seem to care a lot about this not working, for someone who has not experimented with it.

you cannot support your belief that it doesn't help, so why do you persist believing it is counterproductive? Why don't you look at the of facts presented thus far?

[dcb]

why are you asking me to prove a negative? How many crackpot theories would you like me to disprove for you?

[mwebb]

there is no data
the puddinghead claims that there is on his website
but he was misrepresenting the facts .
he then became someone else as the original scammer was banned from this site .

but go back and look , i offered to meet the puddinghead and using his own car and his own installation of his own POS HHO generator
and collect the data
with my toys and my laptop while he drove , i would record .

i did not tell him that it would be
with
and without
his contraption operating

he
became very silent
why ?

was it because he knew the data would show he was full of shnit ?
and that i was going to post the data collected here ?

the offer is still open ...
the silence is deafening .

anyone else have an HHO generator that wants to meet me ?
in or around south eastern NY ?

[ChazInMT]

I would like for the JerryMander to simply respond to my post regarding the root of what he is trying to do.

If an HHO generator only uses 1 gallon of water in 16,000 miles, or even 5,000 miles, (or he could tell me the rate of diffusion of the water) how could such a small amount of HHO gas containing THE SAME ATOMS AS GASOLINE AND AIR do anything...You say adding a tiny bit more Oxygen and Hydrogen to the mix of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen & Carbon makes a noticeable difference.

So I Ask “How can this less than .5% addition of fuel amount to anything significant?”

There is nothing more to it, This Is the Basic Science You are Trying to Support, you are adding a few Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms to the combustion of a huge amount of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon atoms.

That is an undisputable, 100% for sure, broken down to the basics, FACT.

If you can not come up with a reasoned answer to this question, you need to shut up and let this thread die without trying to get in some stupid last remark about how there could be some hope. Cause if you can't respond with a scientifically based answer regarding the fundamental basis for what you are saying, then you're simply spouting BS, and your credibility is worth less than this product dropping from the rear of the male bovine.

[dcb]

I know, the facts have been posted and he ignores them. I even found a nice paper where they couldn't make it make more mpg (it DID make less) and he decided not to listen.

He is a conclusion in search of evidence.

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

I would like for the JerryMander to simply respond to my post regarding the root of what he is trying to do.

sure

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

If an HHO generator only uses 1 gallon of water in 16,000 miles, or even 5,000 miles, (or he could tell me the rate of diffusion of the water) how could such a small amount of HHO gas containing THE SAME ATOMS AS GASOLINE AND AIR do anything...You say adding a tiny bit more Oxygen and Hydrogen to the mix of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen & Carbon makes a noticeable difference.

Well if atoms are completely equivalent to molecules containing them, just go sprinkle some chlorine and sodium on your eggs. And I'm not claiming that it helps anything, I'm just willing to give it a chance.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

So I Ask “How can this less than .5% addition of fuel amount to anything significant?”

A .5% fuel additive can change FE dramatically, just try adding 5BTU's of shampoo to every 1000BTU's of gas.
A 0.15% addition of acetone makes a difference,
and who said anything about significant?

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

There is nothing more to it, This Is the Basic Science You are Trying to Support, you are adding a few Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms to the combustion of a huge amount of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon atoms.
That is an undisputable, 100% for sure, broken down to the basics, FACT.

Indisputable, yes, but are your eggs salty, or on fire? Why don't you cram hunks of coal and graphite in your gas tank? It's carbon after all, then see if you can fire up you propane grill with diamonds.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

If you can not come up with a reasoned answer to this question, you need to shut up and let this thread die without trying to get in some stupid last remark about how there could be some hope. Cause if you can't respond with a scientifically based answer regarding the fundamental basis for what you are saying, then you're simply spouting BS, and your credibility is worth less than this product dropping from the rear of the male bovine.

Which question?
Speaking of excrement, it contains all the same basic atoms that food does, so why not eat it? I'm glad I now know science, now I will never have to go shopping, thanks Chaz!

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by dcb

I know, the facts have been posted and he ignores them. I even found a nice paper where they couldn't make it make more mpg (it DID make less) and he decided not to listen.

He is a conclusion in search of evidence.

That paper was on a similar, but different topic. But it was a nice paper.
I'm fine with the possibility that this doesn't work, I really am, it's just that all the data around this is ether BS from sales people, or none existent.
The problem with this topic is:

Originally Posted by mwebb

there is no data

-There is the conservation of energy argument, but a lot of fuel burns in the cat. Enough energy to offset the alternator, theoretically.
-Fuel contains hydrogen so why would adding more change anything, but then there is common sense.

What other facts are there?

[Daox]

I'm closing this thread. Its obviously going nowhere.