Poll: should EcoModder ban certain forum topics? (HHO, magnets, Ram Implosion Wings)

[MetroMPG]

Recently a number of tired, old threads have been dredged up: one on HHO, the other on fuel line magnets.

With the price of fuel inching up again in North America, new registrations and activity are increasing in the forum... and we know from past experience that high fuel prices are correlated with crackpot activity.

With that in mind, in the interest of attempting to preserve a decent signal:noise ratio on the forum, I had this thought: a blanket ban policy (or strong discouragement) of threads about certain mods which aren't based on well-understood science, and which tend to be popular among conspiracy theorists and people grasping for elixirs & magic bullets.

There are plenty of other forums around where people wanting to discuss those topics are would be welcomed with open arms.

I tend to see those threads as generating more heat than light. They mostly distract from discussion of real mods that have a basis in science / engineering. They also tend to bring out the worst in people (in terms of the tone of the discussions).

What do you think? Please vote & comment!

[Note: the benevolent dictators here at EcoModder aren't bound by the poll results ]

[user removed]

I voted yes, but we should be open to new thoughts where we might have to do a little research to understand the principles involved. Not trying to speak for others, just saying the is still more for me to learn.

regards
Mech

[euromodder]

let's agree to talk about topics based on accepted science/engineering.

That's a severe limitation, and it begs the question : accepted by whom ?

Mainstream, i.e. widely accepted auto engineering, design and solutions are constantly being challenged on this site. With good results, too.

Accepted science once decided the Earth was flat and at the centre of the universe.

If need be, scammers can always be debunked.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Mainstream, i.e. widely accepted auto engineering, design and solutions are constantly being challenged on this site. With good results, too.

There may be a semantic issue with the word "accepted."

Maybe it would have been more clear to say "based on scienctific / engineering principles" instead of "based on accepted science / engineering".

The original wording may suggest holding on to the status quo, which wasn't the intent.

So I've changed it.

While many of our mods may not be "accepted" by the auto industry in terms of product decisions for the mass market, I doubt there are many auto engineers who would argue the effectiveness of the successful ones featured here in terms of their potential to improve fuel economy... because they are based on scienctific / engineering principles.

[gone-ot]

...what? in today's world we really need a GOOD LAUGHING stock!






...I like beach blanket bingo parties (where's Annette?)

[jakobnev]

I'd say no on the grounds that science is not the field but the approach. If someone is into radioactive hoola-hoops or whatever, as long as they conduct actual testing, and do so in a transparent manner, including documenting possible sources of error in a sincere fashion, i'd say all power to them. (Assuming that their hypothesis of how their device works is subject to disproof to begin with)

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

... as long as they conduct actual testing, and do so in a transparent manner, including documenting possible sources of error in a sincere fashion, i'd say all power to them. (Assuming that their hypothesis of how their device works is subject to disproof to begin with)

If only the world were so perfect!

Unfortunately, past experience has revealed a strong negative correllation between the poster's understanding/acceptance of the importance of your points and his/her attraction to radioactive hoola-hoops and similar fuel saving devices/additives.

[bluejoey]

I vote no. If threads need to be closed, let them be closed. But pre-emptive bannings are overkill.

[MotoMoe]

If a special forum was set up for pseudoscience solutions then sure.

[endurance]

I think there's some danger in having one or a small group of people deciding what's science and what's not. However, there is some stuff that's been well established as bunk (i.e. grooves in intake manifolds, HHO, magnets, gasoline vacuum chambers, etc.). For those topics that it's reasonably universally agreed upon that the science does not back up the claims, I'd suggest a sticky on the topic, a brief summary of the real evidence out there, and new threads started on the topic should be deleted as they appear, referring the OP to the sticky.

Otherwise, with new and untested ideas, I'd say hold the poster's feet to the fire, gather some data, get some others on the forum to give it a try and give them enough rope to either hang themselves or prove the doubters wrong. If they hang themselves, put up a new sticky or add them to the mass-sticky on dubious science.

Let's remember that this isn't CleanMPG, it's Ecomodders. There's been a lot of discoveries here; many in the general population would consider us freaks, but there is learning going on. Keep the door open to the unexpected and currently unexplainable, but of course, retain a skeptical eye.

By the way, I'm not voting because surveys like this narrow the options too much to introduce alternatives to the dominant paradigm.