Yeah we all know its a scam

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by UFO

Attitudes aside, the thermodynamic argument is simply not on your side with known chemical reactions and engine conditions. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate how 100 years of engine and fuel designs can be turned on its head simply by adding just the right amount of extra H2. As I said before, I am making the facile argument, but the historic evidence cannot be ignored.

Your argument is facile because you've not made the effort to learn the material. The reason I said your argument was specious was because you were using properties of a closed system to exclude a process in an open system in which it did not apply.

I'm sorry, but you (and the others) do not have the understanding of thermodynamics that you think that you do. Worse still, y'all continue to parrot the same mistake over and over despite me and Rusty trying to explain it to you.

And the thermo IS on my side.

Look, nobody cares that you were wrong. Being wrong isn't a big deal, especially in thermo-it can be one of the hardest subjects around. But not even trying to correct yourself when it's been pointed out isn't good. What is worse is to use your lack of understanding like a stick to hit people with, ganging up on them and belittling them. That IS a big deal, at least to me. I don't like it and won't stand for it- I hate the bullies that do it, and I'll try to stop it every time I see it happen. I've seen it done in other threads by many of the same in this one, and I'm ashamed I didn't act earlier. All I can say is that if y'all were my boys I'd have probably beaten y'all half to death for your disrespect to others.

Originally Posted by UFO

Don't wait on me, I'm patient, this chit chat has been going on for decades.

It wasn't chit chat. It was attacks on others. It's just y'all never expected to be held to account, which I'm doing now.

The sad part is that so far none of the men out there have the self respect and dignity to stand by their words and be judged. And apparently there's not even enough pride in y'all that I can insult and goad into action, even when I take all the risk and put up the money.

Pffft. Y'all disgust me.

I'll be waiting.

[P-hack]

I can't see what numbnuts is saying, though I imagine he his still trying to hide his numerous and egregious errors and salve his ego behind a bet about rusty, or maybe we are back to garbage cans, or proving the earth is flat, but basically what rusty is saying is best understood with a video. Though in this video, the area under the solid green line to the left of TDCC isn't very much but increases with more rpm and more vaccum (whenever ignition is advanced), certainly not enough to get you from 12 to 17 mpg. It describes the effects of rpm and MAP basically. Supposedly we get less area under the pre-tdcc pressure curve with HHO while maintaining pressure peak at ~10 degrees ATDC (via faster combustion of the whole charge making the curve narrower).
If the energy to make the hho is less than 2x the area under the curve left of tdc, you "win", so to speak, approximately of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEbXwvTxkg

edit: note that "energy" under the curve is the integral of pressure and swept displacement, not accounting for heat loss.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by drrbc

Your argument is facile because you've not made the effort to learn the material. The reason I said your argument was specious was because you were using properties of a closed system to exclude a process in an open system in which it did not apply.

I'm sorry, but you (and the others) do not have the understanding of thermodynamics that you think that you do. Worse still, y'all continue to parrot the same mistake over and over despite me and Rusty trying to explain it to you.

And the thermo IS on my side.

Look, nobody cares that you were wrong. Being wrong isn't a big deal, especially in thermo-it can be one of the hardest subjects around. But not even trying to correct yourself when it's been pointed out isn't good. What is worse is to use your lack of understanding like a stick to hit people with, ganging up on them and belittling them. That IS a big deal, at least to me. I don't like it and won't stand for it- I hate the bullies that do it, and I'll try to stop it every time I see it happen. I've seen it done in other threads by many of the same in this one, and I'm ashamed I didn't act earlier. All I can say is that if y'all were my boys I'd have probably beaten y'all half to death for your disrespect to others.



It wasn't chit chat. It was attacks on others. It's just y'all never expected to be held to account, which I'm doing now.

The sad part is that so far none of the men out there have the self respect and dignity to stand by their words and be judged. And apparently there's not even enough pride in y'all that I can insult and goad into action, even when I take all the risk and put up the money.

Pffft. Y'all disgust me.

I'll be waiting.

You have not been following what I have already stated. If you want to close your thermodynamic cycle some where else to avoid or demonstrate energy savings in excess of the 80% loss of generating and re-combusting hydrogen, you are going to have to re-invent the combustion cycle. You've done a lot of hand-waving, and it's irrelevant whether it's sound reasoning or techno-babble, unless you can build something or publish a peer-reviewed paper that proves your ideas, it's just more internet chest-thumping.

[ecoTex]

Originally Posted by drrbc

Well, there should be. But it doesn't look like there is.

Just check all over ecomodder and you'll find this same group, and others (most "Master" ecomodders) disparaging and shouting down others with specious, poorly understood thermodynamics arguments.

It's time others hold these guys accountable. I'm just the first, and I hope others aren't afraid to jump in.

Once someone stands up to the bully and bloodies their nose they usually respond in a positive fashion. It's a little harder with a gang, but the principle is the same.

I was talking about you.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by P-hack

I can't see what numbnuts is saying, though I imagine he his still trying to hide his numerous and egregious errors and salve his ego behind a bet about rusty, or maybe we are back to garbage cans, or proving the earth is flat, but basically what rusty is saying is best understood with a video. Though in this video, the area under the solid green line to the left of TDCC isn't very much but increases with more rpm and more vaccum (whenever ignition is advanced), certainly not enough to get you from 12 to 17 mpg. It describes the effects of rpm and MAP basically. Supposedly we get less area under the pre-tdcc pressure curve with HHO while maintaining pressure peak at ~10 degrees ATDC (via faster combustion of the whole charge making the curve narrower).
If the energy to make the hho is less than 2x the area under the curve left of tdc, you "win", so to speak, approximately of course.

edit: note that "energy" under the curve is the integral of pressure and swept displacement, not accounting for heat loss.

Sunshine! You came back!

...damn

Nope. You still don't get it. It's about the group ganging up on people with specious remarks that you don't understand.

If you want to hold out thermodynamic principals as "proof" the other guy is wrong, then you should expect your remarks to stand up to examination.

I'm holding myself out to the same scrutiny. Find an appropriate Associate or Full Professor of your choosing and let them judge if your electrolysis argument is Shinola or the other stuff you've sprinkled about.

Let's see who a real pro will validate. Choose. I got the tab.

But hurry. It's starting to look like y'all are ch..... well, let's just say I'm thinking y'all are afraid an expert will come in and show everyone in ecomodder that y'all are just a bunch of "dumbnuts".

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by UFO

You have not been following what I have already stated. If you want to close your thermodynamic cycle some where else to avoid or demonstrate energy savings in excess of the 80% loss of generating and re-combusting hydrogen, you are going to have to re-invent the combustion cycle. You've done a lot of hand-waving, and it's irrelevant whether it's sound reasoning or techno-babble, unless you can build something or publish a peer-reviewed paper that proves your ideas, it's just more internet chest-thumping.

I'm following you.

Let's both hold out our comments for examination by a pro. My treat.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by ecoTex

I was talking about you.

Me? For real?

[ecoTex]

Originally Posted by drrbc

Me? For real?

Yes, you are being a jerk.
you even admitted to trying to insult people to get them to take your bet. If this forum is full of "retards", maybe all of you geniuses should start your own forum where you can all agree.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by ecoTex

Yes, you are being a jerk.
you even admitted to trying to insult people to get them to take your bet. If this forum is full of "retards", maybe all of you geniuses should start your own forum where you can all agree.

Yes. You are correct. I am angry.

I'm sorry and I didn't mean to offend you.

But if you feel I'm being unjust, I'd only ask you to re-read all of the posts again carefully.

I welcome scrutiny of what I've written. I don't believe the others will however.

And thank you for keeping me honest.

[oil pan 4]

Wow I saw all these added pages and thought some one made a HHO machine that actually works.
Nope.