Annabelle is a man, his screen name is the name of his truck.

As for the electric car, not junk at all. just VERY expensive for what you get. I rode in a Tesla last September and man that thing could move. The problem is the range. If you just want a run around town car and you have a large disposable income they are a great choice. You want to go cross country or tow a trailer, well you are not going to find a viable option.

 

I am charged nothing. I researched the subject and know it will not work so I do not need to post about how I lost money on it. If a car company were to put it on then it would be assumed by the public that the research was done and that it would work. The fact that it would not work, that is when you would see the hoard of complaints. Since the car companies do actually do research on this and you have not seen it (even as an option) indicates it is not viable.

 

It does work it's just not at a stage when it can be put into mass production vehicles. And yes there are (hybrid) electric vehicles that can go long distances. When you ADD the electric to a gas powered car, kind of like adding hydrogen but different of course.
Now since you seem to know it all, but didn't know that the emissions changes when hydrogen is added, yet claim/act like you have done research. What did you research? Your own opinion? I'm sure all 6.7 diesels are junk because a few had emissions problems, ie then all hydrogen cells must not work since it didn't work on your vehicle. Now that's research.....
How about this kind or research since you bought a cell, right, why don't you bench test it and see if it is actually produceing hydrogen? Then try it on some other vehicle, as I've found from my research each vehicle reacts differently. So what will work for one won't on another. If you bought one of those it will work on anything cells then you got took. It doesn't seem to be that simple or they would be on more vehicles.
Morph that was pretty low with the name.

 

Morphus - for your reading pleasure. The articles themselves are entertaining but reading the comments are absolutely hilarious. I can post more but you would just say they have an agenda against the HHO scam industry.

Popular Mechanics

Coast to Coast

Another Popular Mechanics acticle

 

Wasn't intended. Been so long, I long forgot that was the case. I just glanced at the SN and truly thought what I wrote.

Lesson learned? If you don't want to be called a woman, don't use a womans name for a screen name regardless if it's what you call your truck.

 

Good post MLRey and I'm with you Andy!
Here is a qoute from a user on page one.....
"Well it seems 20% fuel mileage improvement from water is all I'm going to get...."
Been following this thread since 2005 but finally can't take it anymore ....... unsubscribing!

 

I can only chuckle.

I'm suprised how they even allowed that article to be posted with the PM name on it. Seriously?! There are so many holes in it and lack of any detail what so ever, it's not even funny.

I especially like this:

"I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results—fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing. "

So, the better question is, where is the followup? It's now been almost 1.5 years since this happened. I think the reason is, they did find a consistent percent increase in the end, even after refining their testing methods and he doesn't want to admit it and eat his own words!! Obviously, this was a very common, hot topic he was being contacted about. Why the lack of follow-up? Given his attitude, I'm sure he'd like to put the nail in the coffin.

If you didn't notice, one key factor he left out was what the o2 readings were. The obvious is an increase of o2, for which a fuel injected car will naturally compensate for and dump more fuel in. You have to modify the o2 sensor signal to keep the ECU from trying to enrichen the mixture.

His comments regarding emissions could be true. I have yet to see any emissions tests from anyone that's running one so that is yet to be seen. Could it make your car illegal and fail emissions testing? Very well could. You could also make a system that would not be visable underhood. The catch, what does it do to emissions?


Merely, riding on the coat tails of the above article. So, are you going to show some more sites that quote or discuss this same article?


Again, even MORE pathetic than the PM article. Waste of space on the internet.

 

Tree - the thing about the emissions is I did not make a claim of emissions change, you did. So if you saw an emissions difference, if you then quote the change, we can debate it. My research saw no change so I can not discuss something that has no point of reference.

BTW - I never said these systems did not make H2, they do split the water into H2 and O2 that is a fact, the problem is recombining them back into H2O does not make more power then it took to split them. Simple math.

 

LOL man I did not know you wanted to be known as the Roman God of Sleep and Dreams???

 

You claim to have done research. If you had done research you would have known that the emissions will be reduced. That's why I think you didn't do any research. There is many documents stateing the reduction of emissions. A mech. friend of mine did have his truck tested and the emissions were reduced dramatically. If you want to know why the emissons were reduced do some research. I'm tired of you stateing your opinion with the claim of haveing done research.

 

What does one form of developing technology ( battery capacities which now make an electrical car more feasible) have to do with a chemical reaction which has been proven to to inefficient? You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Apparently, you don't even know what you're saying.

Your point: From your first post, is that because it's not mainstream, it's junk science, crap, whatever you want to call it.

My point: That's like saying an electric car is the same, junk science, crap, doesn't work, etc. Because the electric car (or buggy) came out in the late 1800's.

 

Why didn't you say so before?? Now I know your mech friend got dramatically reduced emissions then it must be true.

The problem with research is you have to have a reason to do it. I researched the ability of an HHO system to improve mileage. It proved to be impossible. At this point there was no reason to research emissions.

Now if uncle sam found out what your mech friend did and since it is so easy to do. Why didn't the government mandate they be installed on every vehicle?

I don't get tired of these exchanges as they are very entertaining. I just wish you could provide empirical data instead of anecdotal.

 

No one has ever said the electric car is junk science. They were just not feasible to produce with yesterdays battery development. Producing Hydrogen and injecting it into an engine has long been tried and shown to be inefficient......otherwise it would be main stream. As I said, people have been tryng the Hydrogen hypothesis for decades with no positive results......only bogus claims by some (hoping to make a buck).

 

It's so easy to back up an opinion with an opinion. Use your opinion for research. Kind of like stateing an opinion as fact like you two have been doing. What to I have to gain by makeing bogus claims? I'm not selling anything or encourageing others to buy anything. To the contrary I've tried to get people to build their own cell.
I get the impression that you both got burned on the hydrogen cell and have a major grudge because of it. Your entitled to your opinion.