Water for fuel, scam?

Friends,

I've read their literature and all the posts to date. I think we are missing one or two things:

1) I believe the output of the unit is hydrogen and oxygen gases (from electrolysis), mixed together with perhaps a modest amount of water vapor, not just water vapor only (from boiling).

2) Adding these two gases, in their proper stoichiometric ratio, to the incoming air/fuel mix is going to have some significant effects on the physics of combustion in the cylinders. I am a former chemist, not an automotive engineer. However, I suspect that the burning speed of the fuel charge in the engine will be significantly faster, even at relatively small percentages of added hydrogen/oxygen mix. Shouldn't this have an effect on the effective power output of the engine?

Scoff we can. Discount the hyperbole we should. I fully agree that the energy put into the electrolysis is going to be larger than the energy received from the resulting combustion. However, let us go beyond the quick and pat answers and look at the whole picture. An internal combustion engine is not a "simple machine". Are we seeing the possibility that the additions to the fuel/air mix are shifting the overall efficiency of an internal combustion engine upwards a little from its rather dismal 25-30% figures now? If so, then we should be more receptive to insight from those who have a few less letters after their names. If not, we should be a little more knowledgeable and educated in our reasons for refuting their claims.

Thanks--JMM

the point is, there is not 50% more energy in the exhaust to get back out because the H2 catalys' the fuel or performs magic of some kind to make the fuel burn different. Fuel is fuel, engines engines. Fuel has 21,000 BTU's pound. Engines move the energy around and it leaves via hot water 100% controled and cannot change more than a few percent, in order to get better eff, they'd have to turn the water pump off. Through the exhaust gases in the form of temperature, and the scammers say they think the exhaust is cooler, but to get 50% increase, the exhaust would have be about 40 F, that 40, not 400 , 40 F. Finally, some fuel leaves in the form of unburned hydrocarbons, and incomplete burninh in the form of CO and NO. Again to leave enough unburned fuel in the exhaust to have a 50% gain in milage, you'd have a "fuel extension" you know flames out of the exhaust. Finally, mechanical losses in the engine, and those won't change. o improve eff of a spark ignition ICE, you need to raise compression ratio and thats a fixed value for and engine. You can timing on the engine and such, again those or fixed or in the case of VVT, whatever is programed in.

So, the 4 escape points of the fuels energy are hot water, exhaust temp, unburnt fuel, and mechanical based loses. Not one of them can get more than a 1% gain.

Discount the hyperbole we should.

We should also point out the flat lies. Many of the promoters say 15%, 20% or even 30% of the fuel injected is not burned in the cylinder (and that H2 injection magically allows the excess fuel to burn). The correct figure is .5%, with the catalytic converter window being only half a percent either side of stoichiometric.

Many promoters claim that the improvement comes from injecting H2 (as opposed to injecting H2/O2 in the stoichiometric ratio provided by what would usually be considered dangerous electrolyzers). This is also entirely untrue. Injecting H2 displaces air, leaving inadequate O2 for combustion of the injected gasoline. Dyno tests show, as expected, that power is reduced when H2 is injected into the intake air stream of a spark ignition production engine.

2) Adding these two gases, in their proper stoichiometric ratio, to the incoming air/fuel mix is going to have some significant effects on the physics of combustion in the cylinders.

Why? If the addition is so small (the energy equivalent of 1/300 of cruise power, 1/1000 or less of max power) and if we know that the production of gas would need to be 500% efficient just to break even on an energy balance, then what sort of magic effect can that tiny amount of gas have on an engine? We know that injecting larger quantities of O2 has a beneficial effect on power, but in exactly the expected way -- it simply allows somewhat more fuel to be injected and burned, improving power slightly but not efficiency. We know that injecting H2 alone reduces power. It seems very unlikely that adding H2 and O2 in this tiny amount could have a measurable effect on combustion -- even if the gases were produced elsewhere, without requiring any gasoline energy to produce them. When they are produced on board, we'd expect a net loss, but with such tiny amounts, we wouldn't expect to be able measure the loss with an ordinary chassis dynamometer, which cannot repeatably measure differences of less than one percent.

Once H2 and O2 are added, all you have is H2 and a slightly lean condition. O2 is not a magic gas, and is present in very large volumes (relative to the tiny amount electrolyzed) in the intake air stream. The tiny addition of H2 then is the only real change. This test shows, as expected, that adding H2 has no effect even when the mixture is much leaner than in production engines. Only when there is 15% too little fuel, (far leaner than a production engine) does the addition of relatively large amounts (3.7% -- about 10 times as much as provided by onboard electrolyzers) of H2 have a beneficial effect. This is as expected, and of course the addition of 5% more gasoline would also have a very beneficial effect on power and smoothness of running on an engine that is 15% too lean.

So, even at H2 injection amounts 10 times higher than the electrolyzers produce, in a production engine there is no beneficial effect. Why would there be? Do we trust the promoters of this concept, the best known being a convicted fraud, and additionally trust in magical hitherto unobserved effects of hydrogen... or do we trust university studies and common sense.

I am one of those people with a few less letters after my name, and common sense tells me that these electrolyzers do not work as advertised.

Blink,

I appreciate your reply. I read the abstract of the article, but didn't post the required payment to read it in full. The abstract did note that the burning rate was faster with added hydrogen, as I has expected. The results that you quote are the type of data we need to have.

Thanks--JMM

If burning rates get to fast, then the engine backfires and you lose fuel and valves. This has been documented and is a real problem with 100% H2 fueled engines.

I have seen various claims for HHO systems and ways to optimize them by using square waves of a special frequency, stacks of electrodes to give the right capacitance, that is supposed to be significant. I have seen the outfits that inject water into the intake manifold to cool things down and give some increased power due to the expansion of the resulting steam. Others have suggested attaching magnets to the fuel line which also is supposed to do something magic. Do you think that if a person tried all of these tricks he would have to stop every so often and drain some fuel out of the gas tank?

I am truly amazed that the consumer protection people have not stepped in to spell fini to these fraudulent operations. Just think how the TV announcer is going to feel after they conduct a meaningful test and his boss invites him in for a chat about the stations credibility.

Just an additional comment or two. The folks that claim that a square wave is more efficient than direct current are telling us that anything that is running at a less than 100% duty cycle will outperform something working at 100%. Has anyone found out what the magic frequency is for the square waves is and what is the desired capacitance between the anode and cathode of the electrolysis cell?

I rate this technology with the bracelets that I see advertised on TV that equalized the currents in our bodies and thereby increase our vitality.

But, they still didn't break the laws of thermo, get it?

I've been reading the posts and may be missing something. The internal combustion engine is - from the posts - between 12% and 25% efficient. Several methods have been applied over the decades to improve this with varying degrees of success / failure. The concept of enhancing combustion with hydrogen or other combustibles or enhancing combustion with a richer oxygen supply have worked in race cars and other actual full scale applications. Generating H2 and O2 from water is not rocket science, and both would increase efficiency of combustion, it seems. I understand there is no free lunch (The laws of thermodynamics) but what I think is intended (barring the scammers over reach and over promise) is that there should be a way of exploiting some of the wasted energy in the engine configuration to improve efficiency. If you are wasting 75% - 88% of the energy you put in, getting something out of that is not violating the laws (thermodynamic, conservation, etc.) It is (or at least should be if it can be made to work) another example of waste to energy - a multibillion dollar industry. It is apparent from some of the comments that some posters haven't looked at the available information (one suggests putting a gallon of water in the fuel tank, for example)

If we don't learn to try things, we avoid failure - but we also avoid success.

Modern ICE are 30% to 40% efficent. The energy used to make H2 O2 on board comes from this engine, so the process starts out at 35%, then the process to make the electricity is 95% eff. Next making the gases is 50% efficient, the the H2 and O2 are burned in the ICE at 35% eff, net 6%, so I need to add 100 units of gasoline and I'll get 6 units of energy out.

Enriching engines with O2, that was for power, not fuel effiency. If theses scammers where telling us we could get 10% more peak horsepower, then I'd let them have a pass because its a buyer beware to soop up your car. But telling people they will MAKE MONEY by joining clubs, buying secret videos, saving unrealistic amounts of energy, the audience includes widows and orphans and that is not right.

Thanks for the thoughful reply - now I have to do the research to assess the mass balance across the system boundaries to determine if there may be exploitable losses.

I agree with your second paragraph entirely.

My efficiency numbers refer to the other members of this board who refer to the 12% - 25% efficiency. I also thought that the energy for the "fuel cell" was electricity from the alternator. The alternator produces more electricity than the car can use at most cruising speeds so it does seem to me that there would be some excess energy that could be exploited. As it is most of the gasoline goes out of the engine into the exhaust. Even 35% efficiency is poor, and most cars on the road today are arguable less than that. What are your thoughts on improving the efficiency given the significant amount of waste - if you don't think the excess electricity could provide a benefit how about trying to recover some energy from the heat? Just a thought.

And again - I don't agree with the hucksters that exploit the situation for a fast buck. This or any other sales pitch should be backed by facts, proof and gaurantees or the seller should be subject to punishment beyond market forces.

I don't agree that we should sit back with our head in the tailpipe crying whoa is me. Most industries have explored and implemented energy recover and efficiency improvement system / strategies and could not survive at 35%. Sometimes a crazy idea may have enough of a germ of truth to make it worth exploring. Saying it won't work without trying is as bad as saying it will without proving it. As they say: "The truth of an arguement is often lost in the heat of its defence."

I have also read that there exist more efficient fuel, air or air/fuel delivery systems that are expensive. Maybe with increased fuel costs they will become competitively priced for use in "normal" vehicles.

vicini - Modern ICE are not that efficient - "(www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 % despite that the maximum efficiency for a gasoline engine is 35 %. The main reason to that is that a 200 kW ICE operates at very low loads (10-20 %) almost all it's life where efficiency is about 10 % instead of 35 %. A steam engine has the opposite efficiency characteristic, that is, maximum efficiency at part load (10-20 % load) and lower efficiency at full load. Complete simulation indicate 32 % efficiency at part load for a steam engine, that is 3 times lower fuel consumption for a 200-300 kW engine operating during normal conditions."

Makes one think again about steam engines. "

The Lysholm Expander.

This is a development of a special form of helical screw compressor. The Lysholm has been used successfully as a steam expander. It offers one thing that none of the other positive displacement steam engines provide - almost complete adiabatic expansion. Hot at the inlet end and cold at the exhaust end with no mixing of the exhaust steam with the hot incoming steam.

The Lysholm also can be configured for steam expansion ratios from three or four to one, up to eight to one. It also is a very small physical package, smaller than the automatic transmission in a modern automobile. It also tolerates water in the steam, which no piston engine will do under any circumstances. This indicates that expansion can continue into the wet steam region.

It does not require any valve mechanism, only the inlet throttle valve. This means an engine with a total of two moving parts - a significant advantage.

As an air compressor it was always superior in efficiency when compared to any other compressor. Even early on it its development, commercial units showed over 87% efficiency. Today, with CNC machining to give tight and close tolerances, it gives over 94% efficiency. This also translates directly to the unit being operated backwards as a steam expander.

With the superior machining technology available today, the internal leakage along the rotors and the circumferencial leakage may possibly be reduced to an acceptable rate, although very demanding and costly development would be required.

However, to achieve minimum leakage and high efficiency, the single stage Lysholm needs to be run at very high speeds, between 20,000 and 30,000 RPM. [Ideal for electric generators.] The Lysholm is being made with the two rotors driving each other and also with them not being in contact via the use of synchronizing gears between the rotors, in this way the tolerances can be kept to an absolute minimum, no internal cylinder oil would be used. The Lysholm is particularly attractive as a lower pressure and temperature steam expander for boats and for constant speed use. It is effective with low-pressure wet steam.

A good engine for an EV with a steam powered generator to provide extended range.

vicini - Modern ICE are not that efficient - "(www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 % despite that the maximum efficiency for a gasoline engine is 35 %. The main reason to that is that a 200 kW ICE operates at very low loads (10-20 %) almost all it's life where efficiency is about 10 % instead of 35 %.

Essentially, I agree with the intent of what you are saying. However, the 12% figure reflects the efficiency of an ICE as used and installed in a typical car (although even this is not generally true right now, with there being a lower differential between, for instance, city and highway EPA figures than there used to be.) The figure I typically use when engaging in these debates is generous for the automobile profile but right on the money for low tech industrial engines (i.e. the typical Briggs and Stratton, etc.) when used to generate electricity, pump fluids, etc. To be fair to the HHO whackos, we can say that at least we know that an ICE can be 25% efficient, and the incremental efficiency might be in that range for generating a gas (for running your barbecue) given that the engine is already loaded with other tasks. Thus they only need to prove that 500% efficiency is possible in the electrolysis! (Heck, once you make the leap to 101% efficiency, the rest is easy -- just read any science fiction book... er, no even they are not that far out there.)

I have a spreadsheet I use for calculating such stuff for my project vehicles, and if I plug in the known values for rolling resistance, weight, Cd, frontal area, etc. then I can come within a few percent of real cruise mpg values for several cars I've benchmarked, using the 25% efficiency figure.

Where overall efficiency really looks hideous is when you consider the actual energy required to move one person from A to B at 25 miles per hour -- the average speed in many suburbs. A bicycle (even with its awful streamlining) can do this on about 150- 200 watts of human power*. An SUV can do it on about 15,000 watts, approaching 100 times as much power. A 500 watt electric bike can average 25 mph, still 1/30th the power required for the SUV.

(Requiring 300 watts of food? Which, in turn, required 200 watts to produce?)

Your points re steam are well taken. If I had more time, I'd love to play around with steam, gas turbines, even rotary (wankel) engines optimized for constant load conditions.

Good post.

Ken - Thanks. However the Wankel engine is not well suited to steam due to the wear on the seals. Check the Cyclone engine, the Green Steam Engine, the Tesla Turbine and the Lysholm expander as better sources of rotary power from steam. The idea is to have a short range plug-in EV capable of high speeds for even shorter ranges with a steam engine to power a generator to keep the batteries charged whenever exceeding the plug-in charge. That configuration allows the same range as an IC car, size comfort and convenience yet saves about 80% of the fuel used since most trips are short range. Why mess around with IC engines when this configuration is better and uses less fuel even when the steam engine is running and even less fuel per total miles traveled. I just wish I had money to build one.

"However, the 12% figure reflects the efficiency of an ICE as used and installed in a typical car ...". I am speaking of its use in a car and an average efficiency which is still less than that of a well-designed steam-electric system with all the add-ons to reclaim as much energy as possible.

You started out with the premise that what you don't believe will work can't and have limited your discussions to those issues / items that fit your arguement. I have said that I am not stupid - thank you - and fully understand the conservation of mass / energy, laws of thermodynamics etc. What no one seems to be willing to discuss is ways to improve the efficiency of the ICE. In response to my question about reuse of the wasted electricity two respondents said that the alternator does not produce energy when it is not needed. That statement ignores simple electrical generation. When you spin a magnetic core inside a winding you get electricity. When the car battery does not need voltage, the voltage regulator shunts excess power to ground. Limiting your discussion to small segments of the ICE system ignores that wasted energy.

One post also claimed that there is no "unburnt fuel" in the exhaust. Well if you now expand the discussion to the entire car you are close. Whereas little uncombusted fuel reaches the exhaust, much of the fuel entering the combustion chamber is NOT combusted - hence EGR, Catalytic converters, etc.

My only point in even joining this post is to try to stimulate positive discussion on what CAN be done with innovative and creative thinking to improve the efficiency of the ICE. There is so much energy wasted in the current configuration one would think that some intellengent, open minded thinkers could come up with a way to extract some value out of the waste.

Since it seems most of you are happiest saying "no", instead of "well maybe if we looked at it this way" then I'll leave you all to your individual comfort zones and see if anything good comes out of this.

Discussing how to improve the efficiency of ICE's is a worthy topic,

but not the topic of this discussion. (See the title and 1st post for a reminder of this thread's topic.)

I suggest starting a new discussion if you are interested in discussing ways to improve ICE's. Something like, "What does it take to make a more fuel efficient Internal Combusion Engine?" or something more specific like, "Do turbo chargers make engines more fuel efficient?"

Since it seems most of you are happiest saying "no",

We are happy saying "no" to fraud, but even happier saying "yes" to science.

In response to my question about reuse of the wasted electricity two respondents said that the alternator does not produce energy when it is not needed. That statement ignores simple electrical generation. When you spin a magnetic core inside a winding you get electricity. When the car battery does not need voltage, the voltage regulator shunts excess power to ground.

This is utterly and totally wrong. The regulator does not "shunt excess power to ground" In this day of 200 amp (2400 watt) alternators, imagine how stupid engineers would have to be to design such a system that would waste energy enough to power a small oven! The regulator controls the strength of the magnetic field (the field coil typically being in the rotor) The rotor is not a permanent magnet for obvious reasons -- but even if it were, one would not shunt the output to ground unless one were bent on heating the output windings cherry red.

Read a book. Surf the net. Learn a little.

One post also claimed that there is no "unburnt fuel" in the exhaust. Well if you now expand the discussion to the entire car you are close. Whereas little uncombusted fuel reaches the exhaust, much of the fuel entering the combustion chamber is NOT combusted - hence EGR, Catalytic converters, etc.

Read the Bosch Automotive Handbook, or any text on current engine combustion. The range in current spark ignition engines is stoichiometric =/- .5% (.005) That is the well-known "catalytic converter window". The claims of fraudsters that 15%, 20% etc. goes unburned in the cylinder is simply wrong -- they are lying, pure and simple.

You are welcome to take their side, but don't feel offended if we do not offer a lot of support.

My only point in even joining this post is to try to stimulate positive discussion on what CAN be done with innovative and creative thinking to improve the efficiency of the ICE.

That discussion belongs elsewhere -- please feel free to start a thread. Before doing so, you might want to acquaint yourself with current combustion technology, however.

Fry, couple of the best GA's I've seen in a while.

Thanks!

Sometimes I am stunned. These things have been around since the 1930's; Stan Meyer, the most famous proponent for running cars on water via onboard electrolysis was convicted of fraud; Dennis Lee, the man behind the HAFC, the most heavily advertised such device, has also been convicted of fraud; could this be mere coincidence? Suddenly as gas prices soar, these things are promoted as new technology -- but there is nothing new! It's the same old fuel line magnets, gasoline additives, turbinators and electrolyzers paraded around for a new generation of "suckers" many of whom, unfortunately, cannot reasonably be expected to know anything about thermodynamics, combustion or chemistry. The vendors call them suckers, but most are hard-working ordinary people, who assume (wrongly) that if it is advertised in Newsweek (as the HAFC was) or if the website looks slick, then it must be OK -- after all, we have laws against fraud, they reasonably assume. Sadly, these laws are not aggressively enforced by the FTC as they pertain to these devices.

Just when I think I've said all I can say about such things, along comes a new onslaught of ludicrous assertions, any one of which a 5 second google search would show to be nonsense. I sometimes wonder if Dennis Lee shows up here under pseudonyms.

Me, too.

Stu.

I get this stuff all the time from the tenagers. But its no different than when I was a kid and I believed there were army surplus Harley's for $50 that were disassembled and packed in grease.

The best ones come from older people that now have high frquency pulsed with exotic plates and they use about 10 other official looking words from a NASA electical lab.

I appreciate your help.

Ken,

Please do this experiment.

Go sit in your can and start the engine. Listen very carefully to the 'note' of the engine - the idle speed- from under the bonnet. Simultaneously put your foot on the brake and turn on the headlamps. Notice something? The engine slows, and there is the presence of a slight high-pitched 'sing'. The noise is a harmonic generated in the windings of the ( rectified alternating current) generator, and the engine is slowing because of the increased electrical load, signalling the generator to produce more current so as to keep the system in equilibrium and the battery fully charged. So, your postulation that the excess current is shunted to ground is thus proved incorrect. As has been said by others, there is never any excess current from this device if it is working correctly.

Modern generators will require almost 4hp to run full current delivery, and at idle, speed the small/ medium sized SI engines are hard put to deliver that quantity of power.

That said, I'm not saying that you are stupid, or disagreeing with your right to your opinions. It's just that this thread was instigated to discuss a topic, and several correspondents have put conclusively constructed arguments that the case is a scam. To do this they have called on scientific fact. It seemed to me that accuracy is paramount. Sometimes in our day to day activities there are phenomena we miss, wrapped in the familliarity of life.

Please accept this in the spirit in which it meant - to assist you to understand the facts.

Cheers,

Stu

Doggone! A simple experiment that anyone can do. Who in the world gave you an "Off-topic" vote. That was a great answer!

you want a test that is reproducibleand meaningful? take the vehicle out of the equation.

take your typical 4 cylinder engine, put it on an engine dyno, and do your tests.

you will eliminate many variables with this.

have fun!

anyone see this yet?

'Run Your Car On Water' Scheme Could Leave Consumers All Wet

Well, as the ole farmer used to say about his manure lagoon, "The more I stir it, the worse it smells." Does anyone know the toulene number for hydrogen?

toulene number?

It's an old version of octane number, except that a lot of additives were tested and rated. I suspect hydrogen was also, but can't find any data.

As an aside (and, again stirring the pot), the fellow who used toulene numbers, Harry Ricardo, did tests with both hyrogen enhancement of natural gas ICEs and with water injection into regular gasoline ICEs. If I recall correctly (the book is a bear to find since it's so old), hydrogen did improve the efficiency of natural gas ICEs (well, surprise, surprise- ask any coal miner how fast methane burns) and water injection (that's actual, wet water) into the gasoline ICEs also improved efficiency by slowing down the rate of combustion so that CO would have time to burn (this effect appears to be quite dependent on method of atomization and compression ratios).

Can we run our car with water and gas?

Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

The EPA has tested it and said scam. The FTC is tracking it down. 1 person has been to prison and another pleaded insanity and went to the looney bin instead of jail. What does it take to prove to you guys its a scam.

Perhaps a visit from G-d, with a stone tablet that we could erect just outside Dallas, saying

E = 1 - (1/r_c)^0.4

and a footnote saying, "I gave this to Tizard once already. Did you idiots lose that tablet? I'm gonna start asking for a receipt."

hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

your link has been sent to the FTC along with this post and your data.

OK shut up or put up has been accomplished. All the HHO scammers have a goal now, put up or shut up. go to this link and you'll become rich and famous

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

The Aardvark challenge is very good. The site also provides links to the Aardvark forum and other sites which support the obvious conclusion that HHO generators do not work as advertised.

Of course, the reasoning is scientific and rational, and the writing is articulate. The people who promote these things rely on irrational, unscientific, and inarticulate arguments -- so they will ever be convinced. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general population is completely uneducated in physics, so are ill-equipped to evaluate these scams. I hope this challenge gets loads of publicity.

Love it! You rock, Vicini.

vicini:

Your link is the most convincing win/win situation I have ever come across. Or should that be loose/loose?

Ken, it should be all over now mate. No more doubt, that'll shut'em up. Or will it?

Ken, it should be all over now mate. No more doubt, that'll shut'em up. Or will it?

One would hope.

However, I was disturbed to see the new "retest" results on the Hydro4000, which has generated $1,000,000 in revenue in the last two months, since being promoted by WPTV in a "news" video. (Considering that this is just one of a great many companies running these scams, the total dollars lost is pretty staggering.)

The retest is hideously flawed, but at least brought the 146% improvement the station first claimed down to 10%. Given the large fraud potential, the only appropriate test (especially when a university prof is involved) would be a test using real fuel flow measuring equipment, just like that used in any real university, government agency or auto manufacturer's lab. Mickey Mouse experimental design doesn't cut it when people are being fleeced for $millions monthly.

The notion of separating the tests by five weeks is patently idiotic. Even if one were to accept the error prone "drain the tank" routine (in which you can easily have 1/8 gallon or more in the corner of the tank on one test and not on another because of differences in vehicle attitude) then the tests must be done on the same day in A-B fashion, and repeated enough times to ensure that variability between tests was reasonable. I'd suggested, to Dr Abtahi before the testing, that at very least he'd need to do three A-B cycles to get a feel for variability, and that certainly these three cycles would have to be done one right after another. But instead, he did a single "without device" test, and then waited five weeks to do the single "with device" test. Different weather, different fuel, different mechanical condition of the vehicle, less tire tread on the later test, different vehicle tilt (meaning different amounts of accessible fuel), etc., etc., etc.

All of these variables would be cancelled out fairly effectively if the "before" and "after" tests were done on the same day, as the most basic experimental design principles would suggest. It is as if the test was designed to be invalid. I would be disappointed if my seventh grade daughter designed such a test.

There is no question where the TV station stands on the device: their article starts "If it works as its owners claim, the Hydro 4000 could change the world," and ends with the scammer's words "Put it on and you'll see that it works." The station's site and the scammer's site have been cross linked for months, and the scammer site uses the image of the "reporter" to hype the product. The station, of course, derives revenue from the controversy, with each view of the "test" video preceded by an ad (for the BMW Mini when I watched). They also derive revenue directly from the scammer, I'd assume, from the click-throughs.

I suppose none of this should be shocking, although I have to say that I'm disappointed to see an MIT-educated PhD putting together such a flawed test (you almost have to assume deliberately). If his local university couldn't figure out how to get good test equipment, then why not hand the job off to a university that does this stuff competently? With just the slightest creative thought, I'd think that Taylor (who makes fuel flow measuring equipment for use with dynamometers) would have been happy to lend a unit just for the benefit of the world-wide publicity.

Even more disheartening is Dr Abtahi's contention that "Some improvement within ten percent range may be possible." but he makes no statement about how that could be possible. He's worked with hydrogen fuel cells, and certainly must know that the energy one gets from burning the products of electrolysis is less than the energy consumed by that electrolysis. He should know, if he did any preparation for the experiment whatsoever (or if he read my letters) that engines are typically 25% efficient and alternators typically 67%, so the the electrolysis would need to be 500% efficient just to break even. His claim is pretty extraordinary, unsupported by any other published university study, so it would be reasonable to expect some explanation regarding how he believes such a gain to be possible.

Science: 0. Media-hype-assisted scammers: 1.

Apparently not just the FCC and FTC , but also the local police are investigating so perhaps it will all get straightened out.

Yes, the FTC should look into people taking in more money (and getting handsome profits) than what the actual value of their product is worth, except of course for the oil companies. As we all know, they are hurting for cash.

I have seen evidence that an improved "Brown's Gas" generator can be made using square waves to bombard the molecules and produce more "gas", however, the efficiency is still not quite enough to power an automobile. The energy released by burning Hydrogen is not as much as fossil fuels, so IF it was efficient enough, it would not be the same as a gasoline powered car.

On the other hand, engineers are trained in a box, work in a box and are held in a box by the laws of physics and other laws that are enforced without quarter. Every once in awhile, someone finds a loophole and great things happen. It would be nice if that would happen with regard to our addiction to petroleum products, but I'm not counting on it.

There are other more worthy pursuits that are proven and easy like electric power and biodiesel. Of course, with the recipe posted right on the internet for free, it's more difficult to scam.

Personally, I believe that the scammer's product works, but not well enough to go through the trouble. Hydrogen doesn't like to be compressed and likes to go straight up when released. Not a good quality for an auto fuel.

I personally don't mind when someone makes money from an idea that helps people. I don't like it though when they hit you when you're already bleeding from the price of gas and the lackluster economy. In Florida, they have laws against people jacking up prices when there is a disaster. They should have a law against people taking advantage of the un(der) educated and the gullible. But, if they did that, there would be a severe shortage of politicians, who ironically, write most of the laws.

You CNCode are just the kind of sheepish fool that makes scammers rich. Do you understand that exxon is the 17th largest oil company and that starbuks coffee makes more profit than them. NO, you hear a news report and trust it, you do not know how apply the laws of physics or even understand simple economic theories.

You claim to have seen evidence, so that means you have seen the molecular strucy of the molecule HHO? please enlighten us on this structure so we can derive a new model of the universe. Tell use where the energy comes from to make that molecule to beign with, tell us please, I'm stuck in a box.

As for that box, it scienetist and engineers that work outside, without them, you'd be reading reports about the monsters on the edge of the earth. You'd be satisified with tubes, but because you read about square waves you think can bombard molecules, heck why don't you take that theory to CERN, I'm sure they are stuck in a box too.

People are taking advantage and scamming biodiesel, selling magic formulas that you miw without processing. H2 fuel cells for cars are scams on an even larger scale. The H2 scam is hiding behind laws passed by nonscientific legislators that brough you MTBE, C2H6OH, Clean Coal, wind power with 85% gas turbine standby, and Biodiesel.

You should be in congress, you'd follow in the foot steps of all of them quite well. SO, until there is a peer review validated test and a quatum physics explaination on how there is a free pass on the existing laws of conservation of mass and energy, I'll stay closer to that mystical box that you so fear.

So, you're the expert on "sheepish fools" eh? People understand the workings of molecules and atomic structure without having to actually see the molecules. So you were wrong about "seeing evidence meaning I have seen the molecular 'strucy'" (whatever that is, by the way, thinking "out of the box" doesn't mean making up new words to prove your point). I suppose you meant structure. Experimenters often use the results of an experiment to either prove or disprove their theories. It is called "Scientific Method". Where would we be today if we had to first see things magnified to a molecular level to see how atoms and molecules work. Well, the evidence I was referring to is my own experimentation. I used the "normal" low voltage and electrodes (electrolysis) and the amount of hydrogen was measured although not accurately and certainly with some difficulty. (remember how I said "it likes to go up"?) Using a Tig welder, I tried 220 volts with a square wave output. It was easy to see that more gas was produced, even with the amperage turned down. My comment was that it still isn't enough gas to run an engine in a modern automobile by itself, but it produces more gas than simple electrolysis. It will possibly run a weedeater or lawnmower, but the trade off in apparatus and the nature of Brown's gas, makes it an unwise choice.

The comment about the oil companies was "tongue in cheek". However, it is interesting to see that, although the oil companies (most of them anyway) are making more profit than ever, they pale in significance to the mountainous profit raked in by the banking industry.

Since I am an engineer (Purdue) I speak with authority on natural law. You learn law first, then how to work within it's structure. Then, you can better know and find ways to work around them. The law of gravity is one box you do well to stay within.

"You CNCode are just the kind of sheepish fool that makes scammers rich. Do you understand that exxon is the 17th largest oil company and that starbuks coffee makes more profit than them. NO, you hear a news report and trust it, you do not know how apply the laws of physics or even understand simple economic theories."

I don't post here very much and you obviously don't know me, what proof do you have that I don't understand simple economic theory or know how to apply the laws of physics? You accuse me of believing everything I read and yet by reading one of my posts, you are judging me, my abilities and my knowledge and wisdom. Do you believe everything you read?

Everything posted here is either truth or conjecture, it is up to the reader to choose. Bashing people does not make it the truth or a falsehood.

Truth in advertising is a part of the problem with these scammers. When you buy gas, you see $3.68 right? No. You see $3.68 and off to the right is a little 9. Yes, you pay 9/10 of a cent for gas over the big numbers shown per gallon. When you buy dandruff shampoo, does it actually get rid of dandruff? FTC allows truth in advertising to include the word "helps". Because maybe it does help even if it's just a little. So the bottle reads "Actually helps prevent dandruff". Does it? Maybe. Does the Hydrogen generator help with gas mileage? Maybe it "helps". The secret is to read the fine print. People who don't read the fine print are the "sheep" and are often relieved of hard earned money for their lack of insight. If a bottle of dandruff shampoo "helps" get rid of dandruff and costs $1.50, you might be willing to give it a try, but at $50, you probably wont. Successful scammers carefully word their advertisements and only guarantee the product to the extent of your investment, minus shipping and etc. Your lesson in economics today is why they want your money for 56 days. It is called "cash flow" go and learn what that means and why banks use it to make millions.

I dont fear the box. You must understand: Thinking out of the box isn't living outside of it. Read the posts by the more intelligent posters. They quote the laws of physics and formulas which cannot be circumvented by today's technology. Tomorrow's technology may find ways to work around them, but the box will always be there and I'm glad. So we agree on something!

One word of advice. Please, we're in an engineering forum, learn how to spell. People will take your comments (and you, by extension) more seriously if you at least give the appearance of having an education. I'm not singling you out sir, I give the same advice to all of my students. Also, personal attacks do not prove the truth and often make other people dislike you. There is truth and there is opinion. Sometimes people like to draw lines and call it truth. For instance: If I asked you if it was warm outside, would you say yes if it was 80, 90, 100? (F) If you're from Greenland, 60 degrees (F) maybe warm. But many people would agree that 100 is warm and even 80, but is there a scientific standard for when it is "warm" outside? Is there a scientific standard for how little browns gas "helps" with fuel mileage in a motor vehicle? If not, who is willing to pay for the certified testing to set this standard. Would you? Would anyone here? Yet, we are saying a person who spends their money for something they believe "helps" with gas mileage is wasting their money and making the scammers rich. Do you feel sorry for the "victims" or envious of the scammers?

"Tell use where the energy comes from to make that molecule to beign with, tell us please, I'm stuck in a box."

Interesting question. I suppose you meant "Tell us" where the energy comes from...

Well Eistein's theory of relativity pointed out the relationship of matter and energy in his famous formula E=MC squared. So it took a lot of energy to create any amount of mass. This latent energy can be used in different ways, but one way it has been used is to make bombs. The energy expended is fantastic. Wouldn't it be nice to harness that energy without the explosion. Perhaps the way exists to use some other fuel to move us around, but most scientists and engineers do not work gratuitously. On the other hand, those who would stand to lose from such a discovery seem to have the means to at least start the ball rolling...But what would their motivation be? Save the planet?

"As for that box, it scienetist and engineers that work outside, without them, you'd be reading reports about the monsters on the edge of the earth. You'd be satisified with tubes, but because you read about square waves you think can bombard molecules, heck why don't you take that theory to CERN, I'm sure they are stuck in a box too."

Maybe they are stuck in a box. Are you an expert on that too?

I prefer tubes to solid state in amplifiers, both in guitar and RF.

So what experimentation have you done?

I failed spelling in college, but got an A in thermo. Thanks very little. As a teacher per your post you can fiddle with a welder. As a ChemE designing refineries and maximizing output from the H2 reformer or maximizing Cl2 output from the electrochemical plant, I use the real stuff, Hg cells, steam at 1200 psig, and H2 compressors.

When engineers add their names to frauds, I will report them to the State Board too.

BTW, typing 1 handed is difficult, not that it would matter I guess. Look at the misspelled words, replace the letter with one next to it on the keyboard or hit two keys side by side most of the time looking familiar?

Yes, the FTC should look into people taking in more money (and getting handsome profits) than what the actual value of their product is worth, except of course for the oil companies. As we all know, they are hurting for cash.

Of course, the FTC does not have time to adequately prosecute obvious fraud (such as Dennis Lee's various scams). Therefore they are not about to "look into" perfectly legal activities such as taking in more money than the "actual value" of a product or service. Capitalism as all about charging what the market will bear. You don't find any oil company saying that their fuel will give you 60% improvement in efficiency over that of other companies. They simply offer their product for sale at the highest possible price, in accordance with their responsible to their shareholders to deliver maximum profit. If you don't like the price, buy less. If you don't like the price of a Bentley, don't buy one.

Fraud, however, is:

• A perversion of the truth to induce a person to part with something valuable belonging to them using false or misleading representations.
  
  Elements of fraud which make it actionable are:
• a false representation of a past or present fact by the defendant
• a plaintiff action based upon reliance of that representation
• and damages suffered by a plaintiff from the reliance of the misrepresentation

(See: http://www.uslawbooks.com/books/fraud.htm )

Therefore, Apple is not engaging in fraud when it sell its I Pod for 3 times the price of an MP3 player, nor is Bentley when it sells it behemoths (which, to me, have less value than that of a small, efficient, maneuverable vehicle) for hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, scammers who claim that 15% of the fuel in an engine comes out of the cylinder unburned, or that HHO injection can improve fuel efficiency by 20 to 60 percent, are simply lying to "induce a person to part with something valuable".

Whether the price of these contraptions is $1200, as in the Hydro 4000, or $49 for a set of plans makes no difference -- in both cases the activities are equally fraudulent. Obviously, the FTC will go after the most egregious offenses first. They managed to get a $27,000,000 settlement against Davison, the invention scam, not long ago. Unfortunately, they don't have anywhere near the resources to go after every one of the HHO scams.

I have seen evidence that an improved "Brown's Gas" generator can be made using square waves to bombard the molecules and produce more "gas", however, the efficiency is still not quite enough to power an automobile.

I have no way of knowing if you are actively involved in such fraud yourself, but this statement is absurd, and completely untrue in any scientific sense. "Not quite enough"??? These devices would have to be more than 500% efficient to simply break even on an energy balance (to make up for the roughly 18% efficiency of generating the electricity via ICE and alternator to run the process). Perhaps you are unaware, but efficiencies over 100% have never been demonstrated. Explain what you mean in scientific terms, by "bombard the molecules."

On the other hand, engineers are trained in a box, work in a box and are held in a box by the laws of physics and other laws that are enforced without quarter.

You'd need to explain this more fully for it to come across as anything other than 1. gibberish from someone woefully ill-informed re the nature of science and engineering, or 2. the specious argument of an active fraudster, and 3. profoundly anti-engineering. You seem to be arguing that the educated are stupid and the gullible and ignorant are smart. In this forum, that logic doesn't fly very well, unless you can provide numerous well-documented examples of things that have worked outside the "box" of the laws of physics. (These would need to be much better than the urban legends surrounding the Wright brothers, bumblebees' inability to fly, E=MC², cold fusion, Stanley Meyers conspiracies, etc.) Fully describe just one supportable case in which "someone finds a loophole and great things happen" that would suggest to people educated in science and engineering that, for example, these HHO scams are anything but scams, or that Dennis Lee's perpetual motion generator scam (running for about 20 years now) is anything other than a scam.

Personally, I believe that the scammer's product works, but not well enough to go through the trouble.

That being the case, then explain the physics and chemistry involved, in rational terms. In an engineering forum, "belief" in crank causes is insufficient to convince any of us. You will need to supply a plausible explanation of the physics involved to come across as something other than a supporter of fraud.

Apparently, I spoke for many CR4 folks in this post, which has to do with pseudoscience, and the general lack of support for same here at CR4. Most of us are tolerant of positions outside the mainstream, and most of us are thrilled to see real developments in science and engineering. In fact, it is the very nature of science to challenge the laws that you seem to think constrain us. But if someone here tries to promote the idea that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than vice versa, we are strongly skeptical. If someone then wants to sell us something based upon that contention (saying for instance, that because the sun has been found to revolve around the earth, our breakthrough product can make use of "sun waves" to increase your mileage by 60%) we are likely to scream "fraud!" We don't offer a lot of support to faudsters.

I already posted an answer, but you brought up some other issues.

First of all, I'm not a scammer, nor do I play one on TV. I don't approve of what these guys are doing, but, obviously, they are getting away with it which is what the original poster was talking about.

So, lets answer some questions:

1. Can you produce a flammable gas suitable for burning in an internal combustion engine by electrolysis of water? Yes or no.

2. If yes, then does the additional introduction of this gas while the engine is working give to it more power or the need for less gasoline? Yes or no.

3. If it uses one ounce less of gasoliine in 2 hours burn, does it "save gas"? yes or no.

If someone takes this idea and tries to sell it as a gas saving device, are they lying? yes or no.

Now if they claim to save a gallon of gas for every 2 hours. Then, obviously, they are lying and that would be fraud.

If the introduction of a flamable gas into a gasoline engine does not cause it to burn less gas, why or why not? If it has been proven and a scientific fact has been established that it doesn't make the engine use less gasoline at all, then where is that study?

Im not saying how much one way or another, I'm just saying "caveat emptor" let the buyer beware.

"I have no way of knowing if you are actively involved in such fraud yourself, but this statement is absurd, and completely untrue in any scientific sense. "Not quite enough"??? These devices would have to be more than 500% efficient to simply break even on an energy balance (to make up for the roughly 18% efficiency of generating the electricity via ICE and alternator to run the process). Perhaps you are unaware, but efficiencies over 100% have never been demonstrated. Explain what you mean in scientific terms, by "bombard the molecules."

As i said before, I am not involved in any selling of the generators, I just experimented with it on my own. In electrolysis, a small steady current is introduced and the electric current causes the molecules to split into Hydrogen and oxygen. The formula uses about a volt and 1/2 DC with an anode and an electrode. A square wave introduces a dc current which turns instantly on and instantly off several times per second based on the frequency chosen. This is more of a "bombardment" than a 1.25 volt electric current. Using this method produced more gas. But since it didn't provide enough (or quite enough Ken, you overemphasized that word in my post) to make further experimentation worth while, I dropped it. I also know that the introducton of an electrolyte such as certain salts or acids make the process more effective in hydrogen yield, but still not quite enough to make it a substitute for gasoline or LP. I am aware that efficiencies of over 100% have never been demonstrated. It's all part of one of those "boxes" I referred to in an earlier post.

When it comes to engineering: We use the knowledge we have learned from natural laws, physics. The "box" I am talking about is the limitations of these laws we live by. Thinking "out of the box" is what brought us Aircraft, Laser, Atomic science and more. I was not in any way deriding engineers or engineering. I was bemoaning the fact that many are held back from pushing the limits on these laws because of the very nature of the laws themselves and often, the way they are taught. Throughout history, scientist have discovered things by accident. Where is the engineering in that?

I'm not selling anything. I just think that it is better to experiment and try to do something about a situation than to sit here and belittle others for their thoughts. Wishing to be able to fly may have been what the Wright brothers did, but that's not all they did. I wonder what the engineers and scholars of that time thought about them.

The answers to your questions:

1. Can you produce a flammable gas suitable for burning in an internal combustion engine by electrolysis of water? Yes or no.

This question is a non-sequitur, with little to do with "HHO" devices. Fourth graders understand that if you input energy into water you can create hydrogen and oxygen gases. They should understand (but unfortunately do not, typically) that the energy input for electrolysis is greater that the energy value of the resulting gases. This is true no matter how refined the process: the 60% of some "HHO" scam machines, the 75% of lab equipment the 94% once demonstrated, etc. This figure cannot get beyond 100% (at which point the energy input and output are equal.) If you believe it can, then there is no need to read further. (Living outside of science, where anything is possible, no matter how improbable is fine... we simply speak different languages. There are many sites where you would feel more comfortable.)

No successful high school chemistry student will make the common mistake of a fourth grader. The successful student understands energy balance in chemical reactions. Of course you cannot get more energy out of the H2 than you put into electrolysis. High schoolers know this, and this is not something that is in question -- it is chemistry at its most basic. Will apples fall upward tomorrow? No.

The reason your question is a non-sequitur is that generating the H2 off board the vehicle, using some other source (such as the coal driving a power plant) is entirely different (from a system energy balance perspective) than generating it on board, using the vehicle's fuel to provide energy for the reaction. Engines are roughly 25% efficient and alternators are 67% (on average). (Thus, there is 16.75% total efficiency in generating the electricity used for the electrolysis.) Therefore, if you spend an ounce in gasoline to run the process (even assuming 100% efficiency in electrolysis) you get back .1675 ounce worth of energy in the hydrogen. Therefore, just to avoid reducing your fuel efficiency, the electrolysis process would need to be 100/16.75 or 597% efficient. (If you believe that to be a possible process efficiency then you'd do better proselytizing at Keelynet.)

2. If yes, then does the additional introduction of this gas while the engine is working give to it more power or the need for less gasoline? Yes or no.

I think I answered your first question "no" so then this one needs no answer. However, we could pretend that the answer to the first question is "yes." In that case, then this one has a simple answer: No.

If you inject hydrogen into a running engine, power is reduced for reasons that should be obvious. Power falls off on either side of a stoichiometric mixture. So injecting H2 makes the mixture too rich, reducing power. University dyno tests on engine stands show that the real-world result follows the theory. (I've referenced these elsewhere on the many HHO threads on CR4.)

3. If it uses one ounce less of gasoliine in 2 hours burn, does it "save gas"? yes or no.

If by "it" you mean the engine, then yes, if an engine uses less fuel then it saves gas. I would have hoped you did not need my help in figuring that out.

This situation (using less fuel) is, of course, not the case in HHO scams. The devices cause fuel consumption to increase slightly. However, the increase in fuel consumption is virtually impossible to measure even on a valid chassis dyno test. In one lab test stand dyno test (in which there are fewer variables to deal with) they could still not measure any reduction in fuel efficiency. The reason for this is that these units produce tiny amounts of H2 and O2 gases, and the energy used to do so is itself tiny: typically less than 100 watts on an engine rated for 150,000 watts. Even engine lab dynos cannot measure reliably down to one part in 1500.

Now if they claim to save a gallon of gas for every 2 hours. Then, obviously, they are lying and that would be fraud. Of course, and that is what they are doing. But even if they were claiming a 5% improvement, that too would be fraud. Shop lifting is still stealing. The Hydro 4000 people sold over a $1,000,000 of such units in just two months aided by people who, like you, sing the praises of such devices, and especially by the glowing report by the TV station in West Palm Beach, in which they claimed to improve fuel efficiency by about 150% (but they did the math incorrectly and called that a 60% improvement.)

Im not saying how much one way or another, I'm just saying "caveat emptor" let the buyer beware.

That strikes me as pretty sleazy. People should have a reasonable expectation not to be defrauded, and many people cannot reasonably be expected to to have the knowledge or analytical skills to evaluate these scams. Fraud should be prosecuted, not excused.

I wonder what the engineers and scholars of that time thought about them.

The Wright brothers are often brought up by scammers and fraudsters as "proof" that one must throw away the laws of physics. There is nothing they did that violated any law of physics, and there were thousands of people working on flight at the time, and textbooks on aerodynamics were available to the Wrights. An airplane had even flown with steam engine power long before the Wrights. (Read about Maxim.)

Perhaps you are not actively engaged in fraud, but you bring up the same tired arguments as people who are.

BTW, rudely drawing attention to misspellings in Vicini's post weakens, rather than strengthens your argument. Perhaps you are not really a bully, but it makes you come across that way. Further, ad hominem arguments are rarely effective and frequently backfire.

So let's answer a question:

1. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no. (Can you see how this technique might be rhetorically poor? Does it seem snide?)

Well, you "weaseled" out of giving a direct answer. So you see how the scammers work. You entirely missed my point about the Wright Brothers however. The question was not non sequitur, but you made it so with your answer.

If you would please read the original post:

Here's another one of those HHO scams. Is there any way of proving them wrong so conclusively that they stop?

I have been trying to point out how difficult it is.

The post qualifies the "way" of proving them wrong "so conclusively".

Your first answer is no. You cannot produce a flammable gas from electrolysis that can be burned in an ICE. Wouldn't that be nice for us to use to prove the scammers wrong. Your answer was derived from the viewpoint of efficiency. But you are still "beating your wife" so that you do not "prove them wrong so conclusively that they stop". You claim the question was non-sequitur or did not follow. The fact that this gas cannot be made efficiently was not part of the question.

Your second answer is no. Electrolysis of water H2O produces "Brown's Gas" not pure hydrogen. There is oxygen produced as well. Oxygen actually does make things burn better. "It" refers to the process. You said: "However, the increase in fuel consumption is virtually impossible to measure even on a valid chassis dyno test. In one lab test stand dyno test (in which there are fewer variables to deal with) they could still not measure any reduction in fuel efficiency. The reason for this is that these units produce tiny amounts of H2 and O2 gases, and the energy used to do so is itself tiny: typically less than 100 watts on an engine rated for 150,000 watts. Even engine lab dynos cannot measure reliably down to one part in 1500." Well, not being able to prove your case is not "conclusive enough to prove them wrong" Still beating your wife.

That strikes me as pretty sleazy. People should have a reasonable expectation not to be defrauded, and many people cannot reasonably be expected to to have the knowledge or analytical skills to evaluate these scams. Fraud should be prosecuted, not excused.

We're not in Kansas anymore. Fraud is prosecuted. But it has to be proven. People should have a reasonable expectation not to be defrauded? Yes, they should! But, they still lock their doors when they leave home and when they go shopping, they lock their car doors and hide valuables in the trunk. I am not defending thievery, it's just a part of life we have to deal with the same as fraud and scammers with their scams. Wise people take precautions. Caveat Emptor. Another one: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

One poster here claims he tried a HHO generator and it works according to the claims made. So, is he lying? Is he a part of the fraud? Have you made or tested a generator? Are you still beating your wife? I'm still beating my wife. The other day I met her for lunch and then when we left to go home, I beat her home because I took a short cut. Yes, I beat her all the time. I beat her in ping pong and tennis too.

The question is supposed to be: "Are you still cheating on your wife." Beat and cheat sound alike and could be spelled wrong. But while in a certain context, it can be acceptable to beat your wife (see above), it is considered unacceptable to cheat on her. Words have meaning and are created and given to the reader correctly by proper spelling. This is an engineering forum. To excuse improper spelling is not a trait of a good or successful engineer. Part of accurate data transfer is getting it in the proper order. Do you use the same criteria for your testing? My attitude has nothing to do with the facts. Facts are facts. I think it is rude to reply in written form with glaring spelling errors while trying to prove a point based on words so poorly constructed that I have to guess their meaning. I was giving constructive criticism to help poor Vicini. I agree with you ad hominem arguments are not very good at proving points although I have seen many here.

I have to weigh in here. I constantly hear that the Wright brothers, amateur bike mechanics, invented flying. Well, they didn't. Langley, a trained scientist, made the first aircraft flights (just aircraft, no human) a long time before the Wrights. What they did was take Langley's (of course there were others also - ole Samuel Pierpoint was just the best) work and perfect it by adding wing warping. Then they were able to put a man in it. New technology comes out of apprenticeships and training and education and improving what others have done. To say otherwise is an attack on science and this country can no longer afford that.

And, to stir the pot a little more..

If I were going to get a new sidewalk poured, I'd ask each bidder for references and ask to see other work they had done and then ask them how long they had been in business.

Yet, for one of the most vital projects of our times - energy - I should go with amateurs?

I depend on experienced welders, plumbers, machinists, accountants, lawyers, surveyors for their particular niches. I'll go with chemical engineers on fuel for the same reason.