The cat ears and tail are missing from that cartoon

I guess you forgot that I can use the Jedi mind trick to cloud someone's mind and make them do or think what I want .

Take it you're not a mate of Mobi

I must be feeling provocative - I don't usually "take the bait" like your reference to HHO - but I built and operated my first HHO generator booster on a car in 1972, and have done the same several times since then, most recently a year or so ago. I have a much advanced design on paper and am about to begin experiments with it. Rest assured, I have begun very careful documentation of the project (as I have done with the one on my car - and published all aspects on my now discontinued website).

I have even mailed myself a "postal patent" copy of the latest design, moreover. I've noticed that every new idea goes through four stages - ridicule, tolerance, acceptance, and theft. The latter is often by the same people who began with ridicule.

With six persons - friends (one a college physics teacher) and members of the family - all witnessing not only fueling, travel, and all other pertinent factors in the process, I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy, besides.

The furor since someone first started talking about HHO several years ago reminds me a good deal of the same when the aircraft engine turbocharger and supercharger devices were first patented. "A little learning," said Alexander Pope, "is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

No offense - I can remember well my earlier days when I thought myself so certain in what I knew then.

I don't usually "take the bait" like your reference to HHO

The HHO reference was not bait, and this is not the thread for HHO discussion, nor is CR4 the place for HHO discussion until such time as an independently verified study indicates that the claims of the promoters are valid.

The furor since someone first started talking about HHO several years ago reminds me a good deal of the same when the aircraft engine turbocharger and supercharger devices were first patented.

"Furor" is a bit of a stretch. The first HHO device patent I am aware of was filed in 1918, but the concept (of supplementing petroleum fuels with hydrogen or oxyhydrogen) was around before then. The fraud convictions started soon thereafter. But in any case, your memory appears flawed, because no serious combustion engineer at the time of early supercharging and turbocharging was saying that supercharging or turbocharging would not work because those processes had fundamental flaws in the physics. (Instead, there were the ordinary questions about durability, weight, etc.) Supercharging was patented in the late 19th century by Daimler, and I doubt that you were around then, so you can be forgiven for flawed memory.

As you know, the first objection raised by HHO critics has to do with the laws of thermodynamics (which are more certain now that ever before) indicating that there should be no benefit from the process -- the energy wasted in making HHO is far less than the energy released in burning it.* There were no such arguments re supercharging and turbocharging, and there were many published peer-reviewed studies documenting the effectiveness of forced induction. There are no peer-reviewed studies indicating that HHO injection works as the promoters claim. I hope yours will be the first.

"A little learning," said Alexander Pope, "is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

I agree. Name someone who has drunk "largely" (such as a PhD level combustion engineer) who accepts the claims of HHO promoters. Produce a link to a university or government agency study that supports the usual HHO promoter claims. Granted, your own claims may be quite different -- for example that your HHO unit simply produces bubbles. In that case, you would be on solid ground.

Once your device is working and you've filed at least a provisional patent on it, then publish your results in one of the combustion journals. After publication, then post here if you'd like. CR4 generally closes such threads, but one with independently verifiable data would be welcomed, I think -- because it would be the first.

Good luck. If your unit actually works as well as many promoters claim (the range being from roughly 25% fuel efficiency improvement to several hundred percent) it will be worth many millions to the auto manufacturers.

No offense - I can remember well my earlier days when I thought myself so certain in what I knew then.

No offense taken. I can no longer remember my early days, so you are certainly a step ahead of me.

*Others claim a catalytic effect, but such effect has never been demonstrated at anything remotely close to the ultra low levels produced by onboard HHO units. In published university and NASA tests, the injection levels must be about 100 times greater than those achieved by HHO units to show any benefit -- an even then the primary air-fuel ratio must be extremely lean.

Wow - thanks! Very, very interesting. I made my comment here to test the objective purpose of the "Enough is enough" thread, rather than to discuss HHO. I have, in that regard, also made observations here and elsewhere concerning the extensive debate concerning matters like the World Trade Center. I congratulate you for your having foregone (at least in major part) rancor in your response.

I might point out that it was not I who first mentioned HHO (or the like), and that as a rule of forensics including jurisprudence, once "the door has been opened" anyone affected or interested my go or come in. Inasmuch as you have followed your condemnation of subject matter extraneous to the "thread" by ignoring your own objection, I might tempt experience a bit further in observing that my experiments have as much to do with computerized mixture, airflow, and other engine performance as they have to do with HHO "boosters."

If my use of the word "furor" was somehow excessive, it is perhaps how I remember the discussion of the matter's history (with professors at North Iowa Area Community College) that way. That discussion, incidentally, had to do with use of turbochargers and superchargers on World War Two aircraft (I wasn't aware of the Daimler matter, but will be delighted to research its history). I don't recall any mention of "fraud convictions," but I would certainly like very much for references. Neither did I mean to imply - not did I say -that any "serious combustion engineers" engaged in vilification of the supercharger-turbocharger concept in 1918.

I am, however, old enough to remember that having to do with fighters like the Merlin-power, GE supercharged P-51 Mustang and others. More, I was at the time of the discussion to which I referred , as I am now (my 93 years old father-in-law who remembers the matter and the debate well), well informed by persons - test pilots - actually involved in the project.

My "memory" - like that of most persons - includes that of history and recollection of history (I suggest with all due respect that you look there, rather than react so precipitously - as you obviously have).

More, your reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is both logically and scientifically (for subject matter) flawed as rebuttal to what I said. I first began the investigation in 1972 (the year all the gasoline stations were closed, if you recall) with a Ph.D named Dr. Vern Borglum. A second Ph.D., Dr. Warren Picklum became involved some years later. At that time, incidentally, I designed and set up the first Iowa farm powered entirely with animal (and human) waste, producing methane for power. I doubt that you can imagine the amount of objection and ridicule my several related ideas drew; more, the farm in question remains the only one in the area or the nation so configured and powered. The idea, having been successful now for decades, just won't sell.

Ridicule can, admittedly, be very effective against most persons.

My own self-education is as a matter of demonstrable fact and in terms of study and research easily far in excess of that of most formal doctors of science. I have built approximately thirty devices intended to produce energy from normally accessible sources, HHO or Brown's gas being just one of the lot. It is a fact of scientific history, moreover, that once any given theorem of science has been contradicted further study - which of course, includes speculation and hypothesis - is proper and in order. All of Newtons' science, of which homo sapiens was once certain, has now been varied by what is generally called Quantum Physics.

I, in the other hand and as with so many would-be and actual inventers, first came to the matter of HHO as a result of ignorance. So it was that I was very surprised when what couldn't possibly be effective was.

More, I don't know yet why certain amounts of whatever is produced by electrolysis of potassium salts-water solution increases gasoline mileage on my 2001 Toyota Corolla. Neither do I have the laboratory facilities to find out. I have and am submitting my data to university physics and chemistry departments, as well as chemists with whom I correspond. As I think I mentioned, and airline captain and a Boeing engineer friend of his are also helping me with a secondary computer chip for my experiments.

I have on the table beside where I type this a paper written in response to my own paper on the matter, a paper by a PhD concerning "Electrolytic Gas." My idea has to do with a specially designed, shifting phase alternator supplying multiple electrolysis cells, together with a device designed to boost engine exhaust heat (yes, I know - thermodynamics). A second Ph.D., this one a chemist, tells me my related chemical equations are correct, and that in theory what I propose to do may "work."

While I - understandably, I presume (several of my ideas have been stolen by those who first ridiculed) - will not describe my work any further here, I believe I can run a small reciprocating engine or Wankel turbine completely on HHO or whatever we choose to call electrolytic gas.

I am, parenthetically, very well informed concerning the process where patent and subsequent sale of an idea are concerned - I've paid the price (a great deal of it for patent and copywright attorneys) for ignorance too often. Thanks for the advice, though (assuming you really meant to be helpful or otherwise encouraging).

Now, to return to the subject matter of the "thread" - "Enough is enough," - why is it seemingly so necessary that every new idea first be subjected to ridicule? What is accomplished? As Albert Einstein once remarked, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition form mediocre minds." Oscar Wilde said it another way: "Ridicule is the tribute paid to genius by the mediocrity."

While I - understandably, I presume (several of my ideas have been stolen by those who first ridiculed) - will not describe my work any further here, I believe I can run a small reciprocating engine or Wankel turbine completely on HHO or whatever we choose to call electrolytic gas.

Of course. Virtually anyone can run a small engine on oxyhydrogen, just as you can weld with oxyhydrogen. I am among the (I would guess) hundreds, who, as kids, ran small engines on oxyhydrogen. Equally obvious to anyone with the most basic chemistry education is the fact that the energy to run the engine came from (in my experiment) a car battery, not from the water. It is a fun prank to fool those without a flair for science.

Although you come across as amazingly self-impressed, you nevertheless seem reasonably bright. Too bright, I would hope, to be one of the tin foil hat types who believe that oxyhydrogen production could be self-sustaining (in the Stanley Meyer, run your car on water alone sense). (He was, incidentally, one of the convicted frauds to which I referred earlier.)

As you probably know, the idea of running an engine on oxyhydrogen alone, (with the energy to produce the oxyhydrogen coming from the engine's alternator) is beyond absurd, with the efficiency of the electrolysis process having to be 500% to make up for the 20% combined efficiency of the engine and alternator. No amount of voodoo or twirling dances or drug-induced psychotic imaginings will increase the efficiency of electrolysis to 100% percent, let alone 500%. 500% electrolysis would bring the engine roughly to the point that it could idle on its own, but would it not produce usable power.

Now, to return to the subject matter of the "thread" - "Enough is enough," - why is it seemingly so necessary that every new idea first be subjected to ridicule?

I have not found this to be the case. In fact, in the world at large, I find just the opposite to be true, with many people accepting the pseudo-science often promoted by journalists as if it were sound science.

You will find, if you hang around CR4 a while, that the people here are receptive to new, well-thought-out ideas. We can, of course, be less than enthusiastic about poorly-conceived ideas (such as those involving a large number of lossy energy conversions when a simpler, more efficient system already works or can be envisioned), and are often quite critical of the ideas of nut cases who claim that they have developed over-unity devices (engines that run on HHO alone, magnet motors, gravity motors, etc. etc.) Perhaps there are some here who are routinely negative about new ideas, but no names jump to mind.

I can't think of many fundamentally new ideas that have cropped up here that have been ridiculed. "Air cars" get a lukewarm reception , but they've been around forever. We have old ideas presented as new ideas -- and some people will react negatively to the intellectual dishonesty involved there. The HHO world is full of this, as you probably know. (Dennis Lee, for example, called his HHO unit the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell, to make it sound as if a fuel cell is involved -- hoping to make people think that his device has something in common with legitimate fuel cell vehicles. Same old HHO garbage, repackaged.)

You will find that we rarely ridicule ideas. (Although some ideas are ridiculous on their own; no active "ridiculing is required.) Many of us generally try to separate the ideas from the people promoting them. So, for example, when I have written about convicted fraud Dennis Lee (who is an HHO promoter) I try to make it clear that he has not yet been convicted in connection with HHO fraud (the FTC is just putting him out of the HHO business) but rather, in connection with his perpetual motion generator/"magnet motor" pair.

If you find that a legitimate idea is being ridiculed here to the extent that the comments are rude, then that behavior should be reported. As a test, once you have your intellectual property issues hammered out, then provide BSFC charts and links to peer-reviewed articles on your invention, and see to what, if any, extent your ideas are ridiculed. When the Prius was introduced, with its Atkinson cycle engine achieving 38% efficiency, most engineers were well-impressed, and I was not aware of any who ridiculed Toyota. If you do a competent job of presenting your ideas here, and provide independent test data, I doubt that your ideas will be ridiculed.

More, your reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is both logically and scientifically (for subject matter) flawed as rebuttal to what I said.

I did not reference the second law specifically, but if I had, it would not have been intended as rebuttal to anything you said. I could not "rebut" you memories -- they are what they are.

The point I was clarifying is that you seemed to be suggesting that the arguments about HHO and the arguments about the early days of aircraft forced induction are in some way similar. They are not, in any noteworthy sense (beyond the obvious fact that there have been arguments about both subjects). No knowledgeable person argued that forced induction did not work. Many knowledgeable people, among them the most highly-regarded combustion engineers in the world, argue that HHO injection does not work as the promoters typically claim. Your particular flavor of HHO could be different, and your claims may be atypical. Yours could be the one implementation that actually increases fuel efficiency. If you can demonstrate a meaningful increase in BSFC, others here will join me in cheering you on.

"If you can demonstrate a meaningful increase in BSFC, others here will join me in cheering you on."

I totally agree and I shall be one of the first to congratulate IF it is true!

But I want to see proved results not only words. I want to see test results with clearly specified test conditions validated by INDEPENDENT and COMPETENT persons i.e. with the correct level not to let themselves be cheated or influenced by other participants. I want to see measurements done with a calibrated instruments and not only have affirmations to listen to.

The old Romans had a proverb: "verba volant, scripta manent" = words fligh written stay.

The Romans had a lot of sayings. Another was, "Nam risu inepto res ineptior nulla est," and as I myself once observed, "Quis tantus fructus esset in prosperis rebus nisi habeus qui gaudant illis atque ac tu ipse? Vero esset difficilis ferre abversos sne eo qui ferret eas etiam gravius quam tu."

Do you read Latin, or just copy and quote it? There's a lesson here, for those who can find it.

Thanks for your remarks, and I congratulate you for your objectivity.

I had to smile at the memory of my own high school chemistry class: a guy named Donnie - who probably never followed an instruction from authority in his life - blew into the vial of electrolyzed hydrogen we had freed, that having been told there would be an explosion when the hydrogen re-united with the oxygen. It blew up in is face, of course - and splattered the room with the glass.

It was this event, incidentally, that gave me the idea upon I'm working right now; and I believe that when I run the engine I'll soon buy for the purpose, it will be entirely on the fuel I've freed by a type of electrolysis. If I'm wrong, I'll still have had a lot of fun in the project.

"Although you come across as amazingly self-impressed, you nevertheless seem reasonably bright."

Why the condescending and rudely offensive verbal back-hand? If I said what I did it was in order to make a responsive point: annoyed and irritated since boyhood at similar condescension from those who somehow believe superior - almost almighty - their paid-for "formal" education, I merely meant - and mean - to point out responsively that science learned in our pitiable schools of laughably purported higher education isn't often as good as that learned by one reasonably bright person who teaches himself (when I, auditing a college sophomore biology class many years ago, observed and pointed out in a paper certain rather ludicrous fallacies in blood-typing practice, it had wide repercussions and effect in the science).

I have, in that regard and again in response to offense, successfully - in a couple of instances, eminently - matched my education and knowledge with some of the purportedly best educated persons on this planet; more, I continue to do so. Nevertheless and for example, when I some years ago passed the bar exams of several states, I could not be licensed to practice in any of them, that due the fact that I had not graduated from and "accredited" - how blatantly obvious can a fraud get? - law school and university. That I bothered with the exercise was merely to demonstrate the utter folly of what I call "degree snobbery;" but, the fact that our purported education system wouldn't let Isaac Newton teach physics, Albert Einstein teach physics, Thomas Edison teach electricity, or Ted Williams teach hitting a baseball in our benighted schools and "universities." speaks louder than I might on the subject, anyway.

Whatever.

"As you probably know, the idea of running an engine on oxyhydrogen alone, (with the energy to produce the oxyhydrogen coming from the engine's alternator) is beyond absurd, with the efficiency of the electrolysis process having to be 500% to make up for the 20% combined efficiency of the engine and alternator. No amount of voodoo or twirling dances or drug-induced psychotic imaginings will increase the efficiency of electrolysis to 100% percent, let alone 500%. 500% electrolysis would bring the engine roughly to the point that it could idle on its own, but would it not produce usable power."

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, I hope I am not likewise being so when I point out that your remarks here must betray how much you may in fact know of the subject. Have you considered, perhaps, that you are over your head where the subject and its science is concerned? While I suppose that persons like yourself will immediately "cavil on the ninth part of a hair" when an engine runs on electolyzed fuel alone, saying that the method and fuel are not what they meant - much of the argument there has to do with whether HHO is hydrogen and all the vapid rest - and an engine is right now running (as has the one in my 2001 Toyota) on completely electrolyzed fuel. More, if I had not spent do silly much time in discussion with naysayers like you, I might perhaps have not been beaten to that particular finish line.

I frankly don't know (I haven't the equipment necessary, and persons like the local colleges and car dealerships shops who have the same attitude as you seem to have won't help with my "ridiculous" research) exactly why the HHO booster - if that's what it must be called - I now have on my car produces the results it does. There are some obvious ones, however, and were I interested that much - the booster on my car is just part of my experiments concerning the electrolysis method I've just mentioned - I would obtained equipment which could do the measurements necessary. I'm guessing that the HHO being injected and burned in the cylinders results in more (much, it seems) complete burning of the vaporized gasoline (regular emissions testing by a local shop seems to confirm that). More, things as simple as the fact that with the same throttle setting that left the car sitting still when put in gear until the accelerator was pressed, the car now starts forward or backward also seem to indicate the same.

I note, parenthetically, and lest there be confusion, that the device in my car is not the same as that which ran the same engine on nothing but electrolyzed gas; and if I tip-toe verbally here, it is in order to keep my ideas concerning the matter safe - ridicule included.

I think my theory concerning the more important experiment is better than that of the people already running a car on electrolyzed fuel, however, and it will be (hopefully - with the government spending money faster than the printing presses can produce it, who knows what future prices will be?) accomplished with far less development and producation cost. I certainly may be wrong, having learned from my current wind turbine energy project that I have a lot to learn.

Edison, I'm told, did some pretty silly things before he got the light bulb right.

You refer to my remarks concerning ridicule by saying: "I have not found this to be the case. In fact, in the world at large, I find just the opposite to be true, with many people accepting the pseudo-science often promoted by journalists as if it were sound science. Do you consider "Although you come across as amazingly self-impressed, you nevertheless seem reasonably bright" inoffensive - something other than ridicule?

To compare my experiments and efforts othewise with "kids (who) ran small engines on oxyhydrogen . . . a fun prank to fool those without a flair for science" is not ridicule? Well, I'll be damned!

For your information, incidentally, my original participation here (a fact easily established from the site's record) was for the purpose of measuring "receptive to new, well-thought-out ideas" - not just here but everywhere in the land of free speech and humanitarian, no "hate speech" tolerance. The project, six full years in process, provided socioligists, behaviorists, and forensic historians with considerable data. Among that was the abysmal ill manners and towering red-neck arrogance (both political extremes included) of the U.S. male. While playing "devil's adocate" for either and/or both of opposing sides I was almost never the object of the vilification, vituperation, and vitriole so characteristic of debate in the U.S. when persons outside the U.S. were concerned.

"If you can demonstrate a meaningful increase in BSFC, others here will join me in cheering you on." How would any reasonable person believe that to be so - your remarks here above having been what they are?

"Methinks, sir, thou dost protest too much."

Why don't we - you and I - just wait and see what happens to my project. If it fails, I'll report it, and why I think it happened. Science still works like that, I hope.

It blew up in is face, of course - and splattered the room with the glass.

"Of course" seems like peculiar wording here. Blowing into a vial of hydrogen does not "of course" (if by "of course" you mean that this is a likely or probably outcome) cause an explosion. Hydrogen operates by magic only in the imaginary world of Brown (of Brown's gas fame).

Re: "Although you come across as amazingly self-impressed, you nevertheless seem reasonably bright."

CR4 has had many supporters of perpetual motion devices (e.g. "run your car on water", "Searl effect generator", Magnet motors" etc.) which, to work, would require an "over unity" energy balance. Many promoters appear to be simply not very smart -- I don't know a better, more tactful way of putting that. They are unacquainted with science and the scientific process. You do not seem to fall squarely into that crowd.

When I wrote that you come across as amazingly self-impressed I was basing that assessment on these quotes:

I agree: during my first three years in college I was required to study nothing that I hadn't already learned in high school

My own self-education is as a matter of demonstrable fact and in terms of study and research easily far in excess of that of most formal doctors of science.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in Nick Name's post ("Sir, Thank you for the kindness to comment my comment. In fact from such a light as you I did not expect as a poor "normal" engineer to receive such an attention."), but I think that you might draw from that post that he, too, may have sensed a certainly "holier than thou" attitude.

If you found my characterization condescending and rude, I apologize. It is intended only in the spirit of dialogue from which we can both benefit. I believe you wrote that you have been thrown off several internet sites. I have not had that experience, and if I had, I would want to evaluate my communication style. Feedback from others can be helpful in that regard, and my feedback is in that spirit.

How would any reasonable person believe that to be so - your remarks here above having been what they are?

It is hard to make any blanket statement about the members of CR4, but my experience has been that, as a group, we value science over pseudo-science (thus, the large number of positive votes on my post about pseudo science). When I mentioned HHO in my joking post about Del, I mentioned it in the sense that HHO (as a fuel booster) is something that most of us take as silly, or absurd, or a fraud when the devices are sold (as by Denis Lee) with unsupportable claims. HHO promoters are one of a class of people who many of us consider laughable, because the justifications given for why the device works are laughable, and because no such device had been demonstrated to work in a scientific setting. I bold this because it is the central issue. We, as a group, want to see verifiable data, and we would expect that such data and the journal articles would be of extremely high profile. We've got John Heywood, arguably among the most competent automotive combustion engineers on the planet, saying HHO boosters cannot work as advertised, and FTC-funded tests confirming his contention. Then, on the other hand, we have a bunch of backyard mechanics (and convicted frauds) saying otherwise. Imagine the publicity generated when Heywood's contention is overturned (perhaps by one of our CR4 members).

You need only read through some of the posts on HHO here to see that many of us would cheer to see an HHO booster that works -- and in fact, we would cheer for the precise reason that so much has been written that is not supportive of the scheme. (I doubt that you could find a single post that says: "If you make this thing work and clearly demonstrate that it does, we will vilify you." or any words remotely close to that effect.) If someone announces that computer memory will cost half as much in one year as it does today, no one cheers -- we all say "Ho hum, of course." But overturning of conventional science is something to cheer about. The announcement that String Theory is suddenly very strongly supported would be another such case where even the detractors will cheer -- such is the nature of science -- at least for those who are thrilled by discovery.

When you have the study data, please start a thread to announce it. I think this one has run its course.

Yeah, I tired of this, too. I've proved my point (assuming anyone can remember what it was at the outset) yet again, anyway.

"Of course" seems like peculiar wording here. Blowing into a vial of hydrogen does not "of course" (if by "of course" you mean that this is a likely or probably outcome) cause an explosion. Hydrogen operates by magic only in the imaginary world of Brown (of Brown's gas fame).

Hydrogen is a molecule (not an atom) made up of two atoms of hydrogen when it comes into contact with oxygen – is "oxidized" – burns (oxidizes again), meaning it explodes. That's what happens when you introduce it to a flame, too (burning is oxidation – adding oxygen). That's something just about every high school chemistry class in the country knows. They also know - just as they know the Law of Mass Action - that the oxidation forms a new molecule containing two atoms of hydrogen and one of water.

If I were well enough informed in chemistry, I would provide the chemical equation. The actual combustion of hydrogen in air is chemically a pretty complicated process, as I recall.

It's also true that in order to get the "explosion" I mentioned, there must be enough oxygen present to oxidize (burn) the hydrogen suddenly. "Donnie" seems to have done that. Had there not been enough oxygen present for the explosion we all heard and saw, the gas would have just burned – flamed.

The class had just freed hydrogen from one hydroxide or the other, sodium as I recall, in the presence of aluminum and water. What happened was the reaction of the hydrogen with the oxygen, just like production of the gas with electrolysis. During either process, water molecules are separated ("dissociated," chemists usually say), and the stoichiometric ratio produced does in fact produce a bang. In large quantities like I've been producing, matter of fact, it makes one hell of a bang.

Now I may have said more than I should, even though this process is known to so many that it's hardly the finishing touch on what I propose to try. The fact is, sir, that you seem to understand far too little of any of this to understand any further explanation I might provide – but you or someone here might know someone who does have knowledge sufficient to know what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, and perhaps I'm being cruel – perhaps further the reason I've succeeded in being throw off website forum after forum by using the same methods – but your certainty concerning HHO boosters (who said I had anything like any of these in mind?), like that of all those pontificating so pompously on the matter, "scams" you mention suggests that you must be able to provide a formal proof of Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I'd love to hear you do that, as I'm sure everyone following this "thread" might. It might not only change my mind about your ability to understand any explanation I might give concerning what I've been speaking about, it might also provide some reasonable grounds for anyone to give credence to all the boobousie blabber from petty intellectuals concerning use of the Newton's law concerning hydrogen electrolysis, HHO boosters, and related matter. If you can't understand - explain - the law upon which you supposedly base all your argument, why should anybody listen - and what right have you to sneer?

Come on, wise guy, as the equally bilious Bill O'Reilly always says, "I'll give you the last word."

Oh Sir,

I wrote that for me the discussion was finished but reading with great attention your last production I feel OBLIGED to take my pen again and make some remarks:

"that the oxidation forms a new molecule containing two atoms of hydrogen and one of water.".

I am impressed by the discovery that there are "water atoms" I always thought at my low level that water is a 3 atoms molecule and has the form H2O where the "O" stays for "Oxygen", but of course my knowledge is soooooooo limited!

According to my humble knowledge Newton dueled with "mechanics" and there were other who established the thermodynamics principles and if I am not wrong (but I never can be sure) some time later.

In fact what comes out from all your opus is a very strong arrogance and although not directly said a despise of those who had the misfortune to get a graduation. You are not an exception I met during my long active life many BRIGHT persons who for different reasons were autodidacts learning a lot in an unorganised manner and proud of what they learned. They ALWAYS dreamed to prove that degrees are not worth a twopence and that they were ABOVE all others. It is a pity since this way they loose CREDIBILITY and many good ideas are lost.

I hope it will not be your case since you are supported by academics who consider that what you do is correct. Have you ever asked yourself if it is so why do they not help you to come across the resistant wall of those who do not understand you?

If I would have a bright friend and I would see that he is in need then I shall do all what I can to help.

Congratulations for your insulting manner to accept my Latin proverb and let be supposed that I even do not understand what I write. It is a proof that you are bright. But also egoistic, you should have thought of all readers who did not have the oportunity to learn latin and read it fluently as you and also give the translations of what you brought. This is a proof of your superior way of positionning you highness over others.

Now full stop and you can spare your further novels (you have a real talent in writnig but a bit too long, should be more compact) since I shall not any more react.

Well and good. As some readers will note, this doesn't merit comment, anyway.

I admire your ability to make your way through Walks-in-Storms post. Without any exaggeration whatsoever, I can say that I have known third graders with a better understanding of "conventional" chemistry than his highness appears to have. The advantage that many HHO tinkerers have over the rest of us is that they make up the science as they go, so that what seems patently idiotic to us seems profoundly bright to them. We, living in a world that appears to work in concert with the science we have learned, are at a loss to carry on a rational discourse with those who live in different worlds, such as that of his highness. To him, Newton's Second Law of Thermodynmamics probably seems very, very, real.

For example, how can we possibly argue with this statement:

Hydrogen is a molecule (not an atom) made up of two atoms of hydrogen when it comes into contact with oxygen – is "oxidized" – burns (oxidizes again), meaning it explodes.

In this example, the rules of sentence construction are ignored and ordinary rules of logic are ignored as well -- and, of course, the chemistry is that of some other imaginary world. This gives Walks-in-Storms the upper hand, because he is not constrained by sentence construction or logic rules, whereas we are. At the beginning of the "sentence" he says hydrogen is not an atom, but just a few words later he writes "two atoms of hydrogen" -- strongly suggesting that hydrogen is an atom. So in about a tenth of a second his opinion of hydrogen does an about face -- remarkable. This facility for bending "his" truth one way and then the other at will leaves those of us constrained by ethics, logic, and education at a huge disadvantage.

We are, so far, only a few words into his "sentence" when he writes "made up of two atoms of hydrogen when it comes into contact with oxygen..." We can only guess what self-created theory he is applying here, which again puts us mortals at a bit of a loss. I am guessing the he thinks he knows that hydrogen changes it molecular state (perhaps he calls it shape shifting) to fit its environment. So presumably, it is H2 when it comes into contact with oxygen, H3 when it comes into contact with silicon, and perhaps H6 when it comes into contact with europium? For mortals, this is the stuff of dreams or hallucinations, so we are at a loss to make sense of this.

Later in this same "sentence", he writes: "is "oxidized" – burns (oxidizes again), meaning it explodes". You and I are constrained in our thinking, so do not (at least I did not) realize that this oxidization occurs twice rather than once. We, in our simplicity, think that the reaction he seems to be trying to describe ( (2)H2 + O2 --> 2H20 +e ) involves only a single oxidation reaction. (An aside: there is a crude middle school joke: One asks: "Ever seen a match burn twice?" When the target says no, then the prankster lights a match, blows it out, and applies the hot end to the skin of the target. Maybe it is this sort of thing that his highness has in mind.) When I was in chemical engineering school, this reaction seemed so simple -- now his highness has enlightened both of us to the fact that it is far more complicated than we every dreamed... at least in the alternate reality in which he lives.

Interesting how in the next paragraph he writes "If I were well enough informed in chemistry, I would provide the chemical equation." Many reasonably-bright dance majors can provide the chemical formula I provided above, and, in fact, I can say without any exaggeration that I know fourth graders who can do likewise, and who can explain why the numbers in parentheses show up. Odd how one minute his highness shifts from self-proclaimed PhD level understanding to (what can reasonably be described as) having no understanding whatsoever of chemistry. In our world, you and I both know that if you cannot describe this most common chemical reaction, then you know nothing at all of chemistry.

No surprise then, that such a person has no apparent knowledge of thermodynamics, either. This is the huge advantage he has over mortals. He can make up pseudo-scientific principals out of blue sky, (such as Newton's Second law of Thermodynamics). In our mortal world, Carnot is credited with early development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

His highness claims that a formal proof of his fictitious law would be of interest to CR4 members. Again, he has the advantage of living in an alternate reality; but how might I, who denies the existence of such a law, be expected to prove it, in any formal or other sense? When extraordinary claims are made (such as for the existence of a new law) the burden of proof would have to be on the claimant. It is as if I said to you: "Dammit, Nick Name, give me a formal proof for my claim that Na + Cl combine to form water!"

Even a formal proof of a law that we can agree exists would, I think, be of little interest to CR4 members, 1. because such proofs are available on line, and 2. because we all accept the existence and validity of such laws. But again, his highness can not be challenged on this point, because his notion of the CR4 member is different than ours. We believe that CR4 members are interested in engineering and applied science, whereas his highness believes in his own subjective reality construct, that CR4 members are interested primarily in invented pseudo science.

I've only described one of his attempts at one sentence so far. I cannot make sense of most of the remainder of his post, but some of the stuff is absolutely priceless.

I am proud to join you in worshipping his highness. I can hardly tell you (because the fits of laughter keep me from doing so) how much this brief dialogue with him has enriched my life.

Thank you, we are at least 3 in fact, since a guest thought that an explanation about the laws should be put at the disposal of CR4 readers.

A quite long time ago I was contacted by an inventor who claimed almost exactly the same.

I draw the energy conversion chain from fuel(gasoline, diesel) to fuel (H2) and put at each step the conversion efficiencies. The result was as you can very well imagine -as an engineer not as inventor- at least disappointing for my listener. His reaction was interesting:

"You do, despite your consultant activity, not understand a bit, you do not deserve to be payed for such a negative attitude!"

The translation of the first Latin text is :"nothing more stupid than a stupid laugh" that is the reason I used "insulting" in my comment. The problem with such participants as you already noticed is that if you do not agree with them you are limited, without fantasy, unable to see the future and I stop the list here.

Months ago a participant claimed an idea with 100% efficiency not willing to bring him down in public I used the private channel and made the whole computation to demonstrate, since he claimed he can understand all mathematics involved and all physics, that his assumptions were not correct. I got same comment "you do not understand and not use the right approach". I asked for a counter-demonstration which did never come. This is the reason I said that I am allergic to some assumptions and some declarations without any physical back-ground.

To give a general explanation about explosions. An explosion can only occur when the energy developed at a point on a small volume, by burning, is big enough to heat the surroundings up to the ignition temperature. No gas mixture will explode without a "point" warm enough. So that the lab story is uncompleted. There is a second condition which is related to the heat diffusivity and the flame front speed. If diffusivity is low and flame front speed high then the mixture will explode. For H+O this happens for a determined proportion but not for all.

I think this "thread" had proceeded far enough to make the point that several persons here were discussing at its outset. It doesn't take much to set off the explosion of ego and ego-centric nonsense so much a part of our public discourse now; and like the hydrogen and oxygen mixture I hope to exploit, it can be explosive. Calling a man – that at a time when the word meant more than just gender - a liar used to be a very serious thing.

Incidentally, in regard to that last, the story I told about my classmate was – is – true, and while I'm assuming that my classmate created static electricity by rubbing the glass test-tube, there are a couple of other possibilities I really prefer not to discuss here (I'm really trying to do something new, you see). For an explanation better than any I might make (I'm still guessing), Google Warren C. Strahle, "An Introduction to Combustion," at 3.4. Specifically, Dr. Strahle says, "In the case of hydrogen and oxygen, the explosion may be spontaneous, without ignition source such as a spark."

Not many real scientists will deny that what happened to Donnie – Donald Theis, by name, actually – is possible.

Neither are there no scientists who do not see contradiction in the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (Isaac Newton himself wondered about it). Physicist including today's cosmologists and mathematical physicist have argued the point for decades, some unwilling to grant unlimited validity to the Second Law (which, as I've already pointed, is an inequality mathematically and provable only statistically, while the First Law is an equality and demonstrable otherwise. For a detailed discussion of the matter, one might see Sir Roger Penrose book, "The road to Reality," at pages 689-700.

Otherwise, "Enough is Enough," and thanks for a vigorous discussion – to say nothing of proof where my earlier statement here concerning the public discourse and my participation in other Internet discussion forums.

Neither are there no scientists who do not see contradiction in the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (Isaac Newton himself wondered about it).

Isaak Newton 1643 - 1727

Sadi Carnot's work 1824

Do you see any overlapping?

1st principle formulated in final form 1845.

In fact the second was formulated before the first.

Lavoisier (1743-1794) gave the first form of the conservation of energy and imagined the phlogistic theory.

Descartes (1596-1650) suggested that heat is related to a minute and fast movement of particles in a body, this was considered as possible by Newton and Leibniz.

I am not historian of thermodynamics but there is Wiki to get the help.

I never wrote that the lab story is a lie only that it is uncompleted. I meant that what was written was only a part of what happened.

I think this speaks for itself, so no comment is necessary except to point out that Disputandum ad ridiculum - Appeal to Ridicule - proves nothing except the caliber of him who uses it.

Enough said, I trust.

Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses !

Enough said, I trust.

Far more than just "enough."

In post 53 your wrote:

Come on, wise guy, as the equally bilious Bill O'Reilly always says, "I'll give you the last word."

I have no real reason to believe that you are a man of your word... but hope springs eternal.

"... a guy ... blew into the vial of electrolyzed hydrogen we had freed, that having been told there would be an explosion when the hydrogen re-united with the oxygen. It blew up in is face, of course ... "

This one puzzled me - and it wasn't until Blink mentioned it that my thoughts began to gel.

Whence came the energy to initiate the reaction? If hydrogen and oxygen spontaneously recombine, how is it possible for Brown's gas - HHO - ever to exist?

With all due respect, it's becoming clear that I'm trying to discuss something with persons woefully lacking in sufficient grounding to understand what's being discussed. First, one can quickly "Google" websites by chemists - PhD experts - who explain what occurred. Just Google something like "How to make hydrogen," and you will no doubt find a dozen of more explanations, those much more detailed that I care to offer here.

What is amazing to me - even with our miserable education system being what it is - that persons like you have not done these experiments.

If you are sufficiently interested, what is called the Law of Mass Action provides:

2H₂ + O₂ >>> 2H₂O Those arrowheads are meant to "sub" for the full arrow symbol meaning "goes to" or "becomes." The chemical equation means that two molecules of hydrogen and one of water combine to give two molecules of water. The Law of Mass Action then tell us that when the reaction is completed there will still be some atoms of hydrogen and oxygen that are not in the form of water, and that that concentration of hydrogen, oxygen, and water molecule are:

[H₂0]²[O₂] = K[H₂O]²

That is, the square of the hydrogen concentration times the oxygen concentration equals the equilibrium constant times the square of the water concentration. In short, the Law of Mass Action says that energy is released by the recombination of hydrogen and water, a fact which – as I've already given away here – is what I propose to use.

'Kay?

P.S. You know, I'm really beginning to wish I hadn't started this discussion.

Incidentally (P.S. for my last here), I trust that readers of this "thread" are aware that proof of Newton's Second Law is both statistical and a contradiction of his first law - which is the Law of Conservation of Energy. Not many of the persons pontificating and posturing everywhere (pro or con) concerning the electrolyis-HHO matter demonstrates any real understanding about the laws they purport to wield so furiously, much less are they scientists.

What makes my old born in the U.S.A., served in her military and all that, ass tired is what discussions like this betray about the U.S. male (seldom is a woman part of these blabberfests). Already the laughstock of the wide world, he is too damned ignorant to know his own benighted condition. Worse, when someone demonstrates an engine running on on-board (have I mentioned that two are running now) produced hydrogen, he will be heard to again pontificate that he knew it all along.

Tiresome - just plain tiresome! And rest assured, I won't be writing any more on the subject. Anyone that interested can easily learn what I might say, anyway.

Newton's three laws of mouvement

First lawThere exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. This law is often simplified as "A body persists in a state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force." Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.Second lawObserved from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. Since by definition the mass of a particle is constant, this law is often stated as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma): the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."Third lawWhenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified into the sentence, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In the given interpretation mass, acceleration, momentum, and (most importantly) force are assumed to be externally defined quantities. This is the most common, but not the only interpretation: one can consider the laws to be a definition of these quantities.

Some authors interpret the first law as defining what an inertial reference frame is; from this point of view, the second law only holds when the observation is made from an inertial reference frame, and therefore the first law cannot be proved as a special case of the second. Other authors do treat the first law as a corollary of the second.^[3] The explicit concept of an inertial frame of reference was not developed until long after Newton's death.

Thermodynamics laws

These four laws are:

• Zeroth law of thermodynamics, about thermal equilibrium:

If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other. If we grant that all systems are (trivially) in thermal equilibrium with themselves, the Zeroth law implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature. Thus, if we want to know if two bodies are at the same temperature, it is not necessary to bring them into contact and to watch whether their observable properties change with time.^[15]

• First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy:

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system or we can say " In an isolated system the heat is constant".

• Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy:

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value or we can say " in an isolated system, the entropy never decreases".

• Third law of thermodynamics, about the absolute zero of temperature:

As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes". See also: Bose–Einstein condensate and negative temperature.

Great, we finally have a new support of the over unit efficiency! And IT WORKED!

Somebody who has such gifts to go over a thermodynamics worldwide accepted principle should in fact be able to compute the centrifugal force of a dis-balanced weight and be sure that his computation is correct.

It is a discrepancy which makes me have a DOUBT and, as I many times already mentioned, when I read about such "solutions" or Tesla's black energy or fantastic turbine with efficiencies one only can dream about I am sorry but I react allergically and aggressively.

As the title says "ENOUGH is ENOUGH"!

You may like to see my remarks elsewhere here - to "Blink," as I recall.

I might also observe that I am never so certain of my computation - or opinions - that I eschew those of others. As I noted with my question, however, I was "curious" as to how many persons who are so obviously dead certain of their own ideas and opinions could give provide readers like me with the correct equations. I have asked the same kind of questions elsewhere on the Internet, and with the same results obtained here.

Something to consider, huh?

I, too, am sorry that you "react allergically and aggressively. In the fifty years that I competed in freestyle wrestling and judo, I met many, many similar personalities. They were easy, as the type always is.

That's something to consider, too - isn't it?

What does being nasty accomplish for the "thread" and reader here - what does it accomplish for you?

Sir,

Thank you for the kindness to comment my comment. In fact from such a light as you I did not expect as a poor "normal" engineer to receive such an attention. I think that you are too good for us we do not have such gifts as you and I do not feel to have the high level to give you an opinion or make a comment with respect to your too high level questions.

What only surprises me is that with such a support -so many PhD and aeronautic specialists you are not yet THE person in the USA to manage the biggest fortune due to saving the humanity from the tremendous energy problem.

In my world, narrow and limited by the principles of an overhauled science named physics, such miracles as you deal with are simply not possible. I am not "nasty" I am only fed up, that's all and for me discussion is closed. Any way good luck in your special world!

(Last theories allow parallel worlds even outside of science fiction may be here is one)

I think I've made response to this, and to this sort of thing elsewhere here. I think enough has been said.

Incidentally, however, do you believe - as you seem to - that profit is the only motive possible? Why would I, seventy-three years of age, give a damn about profit - or, since you mention it, fame?

Since we've begun (humbly, of course) to quote Latin: "At meo iambos non effigies" (you shall not evade the rhymes I've made).