Why try to get from GR4 a suggestion?

The best test can be done by an scientific group from an University which already works in the direction of increasing miles/g.

The comparison you suggest has some weak points since it is too sensitive to many not measured parameters and since you are an "experiment" man and fully against theory it will be positive to master the experiment conditions since as you well know from your own experience details can become very important.

Do not consider my suggestion as contrary to your development but as long as I do not see a comparison done by an independent group I will not believe it. My position is dictated by my own experience with prototypes and developments which behaved some times in the practice quite different from the lab tests due to slight changes in the environment.

As said details can be under circumstances very important!

I am trying to get a REAL engineer or scientist to help set up an acceptable test for all to use. I appreciate suggestions about having universities and third party testing, but I am not rich and no university has been interested up to this point unless I pay them to do the testing. I am not against theory unless theory stands in the way of accepting the TRUTH.

Which details specifically? Which environmental changes specifically? What experience dictates your view specifically?

I am sorry to say that I do not consider myself as a "real" engineer the way you understand it. What you want is some body to give you for free a method highly precise. Without instrumentation to document all details such an approach is not possible.

If you are, as you claim, an expert in testing you should know that if conditions differ results can differ too.

The test you want to have is NOT a "safe" one since too many variables can act and the uncertainty of the method can be such that the result is what you want to get.

It is not the first time I met technical persons with an "engineering degree" who are underestimating those who have a "real" one.

For me the discussion is closed but again I will not give even a look at a result not coming from a 3rd independent highly skilled part (and with a VERY serious theoretical back ground).

If I was a scammer looking for idiots to buy snake oil I wouldn't be trying to get an approved method for proving it works.

So you're back trying to scam people eh? You have still not answered my question: what do your investors hope to gain in return for helping prove your system works, since you said you're not selling anything. The simple reason why you're looking for a new testing method is because you know that the standard dynamometer test will prove that your HHO generator is a scam, as it has countless times for other HHO systems, so you're looking for one that you can fake to show that it does work.

My suggestion to you is to add fine chips of pure potassium metal into boiling water. The amount of hydrogen gas you will produce is far greater than what any HHO generator will ever release in a much shorter time frame. Disclaimer: if you decide to try this out without doing chemistry research first, you and you alone shall bear full responsibility for the consequences of winning the Darwin Awards. Although I can and will gladly claim the scalp of yet another scammer.

In my opinion, that post should get this person banned from this forum.

How would you measure the fuel consumption exactly? Saying I should measure the fuel consumption without offering a method is useless. I fill up to the top of the fill neck every time and do tests consecutively which eliminates a lot of the outside influence from temperature and moisture changes during testing. As I have stated before, I have many tests done in this manner which have shown 30% or more improvement from HHO alone.

Thank you for stating the obvious: "Real engineers understand energy conservation and are reluctant to waste significant time proving that it is true". And thank you for telling me you would start off with due dilligence telling me that HHO doesn't work prior to doing the test I prescribe. That is precisely the arrogant offhanded dismissal of my work that has me here in the first place. I am not pretending to be an engineer or a scientist. I believe a lot of people here are, however, and I would love to see someone list their credentials along with their statements to prove me wrong.

If I might add one suggestion to the above.

If the OP chooses not to go the best (and logical) route of using a dynomometer and instead opts for the "drive it 100 miles" method then I submit that the driver should be unaware if the magic HHO device is turned off or on. This should eliminate any uninentional (?) alteration of driving method that might affect milage.

Place the on/off switch out of sight & sound of the driver and let an impartial party choose and record which setting it's in before each run and keep that information secret until the conclusion of all test runs.

Label the switch A/B so even the switch-thrower can't impart a clue to the driver. Instruct the thrower that while the switch must be in either A or B an equal # of times over all the test runs, it must be thrown in some random manner. For example: AABABBAABB instead of ABABABABAB. Just in case the driver gets an inkling at some point.

Ok guest. I think your idea is fine. Next time I have my results verified by someone we will relocate the switch so that only that person sees it. I may even allow them to drive half of the time while I monitor the switch half of the time to eliminate my driving habits as a variable. As long as we both get to choose 3 different on/off positions the results will show the same average. If there is a difference in mileage from driving habits,it should show up in the data. Switch position, and fuel consumption can be noted 6 times with 2 different drivers to eliminate trickery.

When I have access to a dyno I will post the results.

No, no.

The same driver, every time. The same switch thower, every time. Never the twain shall meet. Litteraly, if possible.

Driver habbits won't be a variable when using only one driver who absolutely positively never knows the switch position until all the test runs are completed. Introducing different drivers does the exact opposite of what you want - it introduces variables in driving habbits.

In fact, I'd go further and say that you have to cover up the fuel gague with black tape so that the driver can't get any idea of fuel consumption along the way. That might also affect driving habbits. For example, if the driver thinks he's getting poor milage on a given run, he might unintentionally ease off a bit on the throttle.

The driver also should not be the person filling up the tank after each run. By keeping count of high fills / low fills they could guess or even determine the next switch position (if near the end of all test runs) and this could affect their driving.

And there are no doubt many other things you should do to make it truly double-blind.

So...at this point are you beginning to see how much better it would be if you simply put the thing on a dyno and left the drivers / unintentional influences / switch mystery / etc. out of the whole thing?

Taguchi design of experiments

L8 matrix

f test for statistical significance.

Response variable miles per gallon of Gasoline.

Test variables : miles at speed. With A Without A

minutes at speed With A Without A

Driver 1 driver 2

Fuel temperature and barometric pressure recorded.

Personally I like the dyno but a taguchi matrix could handle this multivari. experiment.

HAving read Blink's math calculations on the energy "per liter" of H₂ and using what I learned in my over 30 credit hours of university chemistry coursework, I'wouldn't actually do the test. That's the joy of engineering, When you can do the math, you can avoid the pain.

Heres a visual: It would take 24 Hydrogen tank trucks to deliver the same amount of mileage as one tanker truck of GAsoline.

And so how much of hydrogen (not HHO, the oxygen is not a fuel, its an oxidizer) BY MASS are you adding??

Difficult to measure an effect would n't you say? High Noise to signal ratio.

HAve fun

milo

Of course I see the benefits of dyno testing. My point all along has been my lack of funds for such things. I hope that situation improves soon. When dyno testing is done I will post the results as I have stated in the past. Right now I am trying to do what I can for all of the other people who are broke like me and are not sure if they have verifyable data. I think your suggestions are great. I like the double blind study which removes driver influence on data.

Now as for fuel testing we can agree on filling up the fill-tube to the top (Topping Off) with the same fuel every time? Since some of the tests will not be done on a loop of roadways back to the starting point we should identify a specific fuel supplier such as Shell or some other common source along the road. Same fuel type etc.

Data logging can only be accomplished on fuel consumption at refill so during the test a record could be kept of outside air temp and engine readings. Any unforseen variables such as a rain shower or stopping for a train should be logged. I think a test data sheet with room for notes could be printed for each fill-up/ test.

Note post 5 stated to use cruise control on a closed flat track. That should eliminate driver bias: he is just steering the car, not working the throttle.

You are wasting your time testing your system on a car. Just use the energy it creates to make more and more HHO, then close the loop and you'll have a perpetual motion device. I don't believe this would deserve any recognition by scientists and engineers that are stubbornly opposed to that kind of ideas, but at least it'll make you a saint after such a miracle.

I will ignore you, too, "onecraftydude", except to say that, if the damn thing really works, you should be able to prove it without resorting to statements such as "dependable and proven to work".

Where's your proof?

"I have perfected a specific design". Who's design is it that you have "perfected"?

Where is it?

I think you are full of yourself!

Your probably right, but I'm sure it's temporary.