« Magnetic fuel saving scams
The deleted HHO conversation between HHOTec and me »

Run your car on water? Nonsense! It is a Scam!

1st April 2008, 05:14 pm

Loads of websites offer to teach you the secret of how to run your engine on water, mostly for a fee. For example Water4Gas.com say, on there enormously long and infomercial-like web page, you can halve your mileage and boost your performance by running your car on water.

Sound like bullshit to you? Of course it is bullshit!

Hydrogen Fuel Cells:

Fuel cells are a totally different technology to what we are talking about here, real fuel cell does run on hydrogen but produces electricity which is used, in this case, in electric cars, the scamers selling HHO will talk about their product being a “fuel cell” but it is not!

The HHO theory:

The theory usually goes goes something like this (there are many variations on “how it works”, often even on the same web-page); electricity from your engine’s battery is used to separate the water into its components, oxygen and hydrogen, which are then introduced in to your engine via the engine’s air intake along with the fuel the engine it was running on in the first place - the result being that somehow you use less fuel and/or get better mileage.

The HHO reality:

How could this not be true? After all anyone who has played will electrolysis will tell you how it creates a very flammable gas.

The thing is it takes a lot more energy to separate your water into oxygen and hydrogen (often called “HHO”) than there is energy available in the HHO when it burns, and the energy used to make the HHO came from your engine which means the energy to make the HHO came from your fuel, so you use more energy creating HHO than there is available to gain from it by burning it.

To put it another way, if the device operated as claimed the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state (starting with water and ending with water) while extracting usable energy, thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy laws, making it a perpetual motion machine.

Catalysts:

Often, as a response to people like me citing the laws of physics, the HHO scammers will change tack and start saying that the HHO does not burn in the engine, that it acts as a catalyst, or that it acts like a catalyst, to improve the efficiency of your engine. This is so psudo-scientific that it makes my head spin, there is no catalyst here and nothing acts like a catalyst (except for a catalyst, I suppose).

Excess Energy:

They will tell you that the HHO apparatus runs on the “excess energy” your engine’s alternator produces. There is, of course, no such thing as excess energy.

Your alternator makes as much energy as is demanded of it, no excess. Not much energy is demanded of it most of the time, but turn on the lights, or your air conditioning or your HHO machine, and your alternator will have to produce more energy; this energy has to come from somewhere, it comes from your engine which means you burn more fuel.

Other Excuses:

Recently the scammers have changed direction again, now they say that the ways the technology works mentioned above are not correct. Now they say that the hydrogen introduced makes your fuel “burn more efficiently” or “burn more completely”. They talk about how you engine is only 40% efficient and how the HHO enables more fuel to be burnt resulting in greater efficiency.

Again, this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. You engine is only about 40% efficient but the other 60% of the energy is not in unburned fuel, it is wasted in noise and heat. A well tuned engine will burn well in excess of 95% of its fuel so even if HHO did work (and I assure you it does not) then you would only see a few percent increase.

Even more recently I have heard talk of “how it works” by using the vehicles kinetic energy when it slows down to make hydrogen, in other words the hydrogen is stored kinetic energy which would otherwise be lost in the brakes - if this were true, and it is not, then the increase in efficiency would be minuscule.

Stanley Meyer:

This nonsense all comes from a guy called Stanley Meyer who’s invention in the 1990’s was claimed to use high frequency pulses of electricity to separate the water into its component parts. His claims about his “Water Fuel Cell” and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996, he produced not a shred of evidence that any of his devices operate as he claimed and he was forced to refund the investors he had defrauded.

Confused?

The scammers trying to sell this HHO idea are deliberately confusing you, mixing ideas, muddling real technologies into their nonsense; talking of the engine burning the HHO one moment, then of fuel cells, then hybrids, then catalysts, then citing different technologies as examples of how theirs works. These guys even contradict themselves, often several times, on their own web pages, it is all designed to confuse you enough into trying it for yourself.

The Evidence (or lack of it):

They hide behind pseudo-scientific words and theories; conspiratorial theories about oil companies; long, confusing meandering deliberate sidetracks. This is all entirely consistent with scams, it is “smoke and mirrors”, it is a text-book model of how to run a confidence trick.

There is one thing which is consistent in the HHO scam however, they never offer any proof at all. They will often talk about how much fuel they save (and you could too!) but they never have any kind of proof available, just anecdotal examples of how much money they, their friends, their customers have saved.

Talk to them:

There are even HHO forums on the internet where you can discuss these “technologies” with “common folk” like you (presumably the scamers themselves, but also maybe people who have yet to realise or admit that they have been conned).

They will tell you people like me don’t know what we are talking about… that we are “narrow minded”… that we don’t understand… that HHO works… that they have doubled their mileage… and so on… all you have to do is try it! Try posting to these forums that it is a scam or ask too many questions and they ban you and deleted what you wrote (this is what happened to me on this forum).

So sue me:

I am so sure this is a scam that I invite the scamers to sue me - bring it on! - something like 10,000 people have read this page and yet no takers to shut me up…

“Anyone who says HHO works is either a con-man or grossly mistaken!”

If you still don’t believe me then read these:

If you still want to try it:

If you still want to try it then you have either you have not read what i have to say or you have not understood me, please use my contact page or comment below and let me know why I’m wrong.

Whatever you do, don’t pay for the information, it is all freely available on line:

A very American idea:

It is a very American idea; to distrust the authority of all those “so called experts”, that a uneducated backyard tinkerer can prove all those “elitist scientists” wrong. Unfortunately in this instance your distrust of authority is being abused, you are being sold a lie. Think about it for a moment, it is like saying your better informed than me because I went to university, the uneducated are better educated than the educated, it makes no sense.

Further reading:

Although these are all Wikipedia entries, and therefore of dubious reliability, these happen to all be of excellent quality and well cited:

————————————–

Found this page useful?

I hope you have found this page useful. All information freely given but web-servers cost money, if you fancy buying me a beer please use on of the links on the right or click here.


Category: HHO  |  Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback

51 Comments

  1. Phil:

    Have you tried and tested this technology? Out of a MASSIVE amount of search results, yours is the only one I\’ve come across that says this is rubbish. Do you even know what you\’re talking about, when it comes to their claims? I think you\’d better watch yourself because publishing your opinions as fact is libelous and could get you into serious trouble.
    I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). Systems such as water4gas say they improve the efficiency of the fuel being burned - they don\’t claim to totally replace petrol or diesel. That would be foolish. To me, you sound foolish. You\’ve dismissed something offhand without even investigating it. What would you have to gain, we ask? Well, you\’re publishing a book on biodiesel! Isn\’t it worth seeing if this method of using HHO works with bio-fuels *as well* as with oil-based fuels? It seems to me that a little bit of cheap experimentation on your part could thrust you into the forefront of this type of research.
    Finally, I\’m well aware that you probably have the power to edit and remove comments on this site. I hope you have the courage to leave this up and prove me wrong. I will be checking back…

    Thanks,
    Phil

    19 July 2008, 4:52 pm

  2. Jon:

    Thanks for your comment, Phil. I promise not to edit or delete it in any way.

    The basic premise of what i am saying is that this “technology” is, at the very best extraordinary (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is not given) and is, in fact, clearly nonsense – you have not shown me anything to suggest otherwise.

    To address you points one at a time:

    • Have you tried and tested this technology?
      No, I no more need to try this “ technology” out to know it is bullshit than to visit the moon to know it is not made of cheese.
    • Out of a MASSIVE amount of search results, yours is the only one I\’ve come across that says this is rubbish.
      I have never seen any evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that any of this is true; you talk of “MASSIVE amount of search results”, please show it to me!
    • Do you even know what you\’re talking about, when it comes to their claims?
      I have a physics degree so I know a lot about thermodynamics and I am trained to approach things scientifically.
    • I think you\’d better watch yourself because publishing your opinions as fact is libelous and could get you into serious trouble.
      I am not in any way scared of being sued for liable over this; in fact bring it on! These guys are fraudsters, are you trying to say i am in the wrong for pointing it out?
    • I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). Systems such as water4gas say they improve the efficiency of the fuel being burned - they don\’t claim to totally replace petrol or diesel. That would be foolish.
      Actually, if you read it, on the water4gas site it is pretty explicit in that you “burn” the “brown gas” and how it is “ignited by the strong spark” ……. and so on……
      Do you know what a catalyst is? Because I don’t see one. Their system claims to, one way or another, separate water in to H and O, introduce it into combustion chamber, burn it, and this results in water coming out of the exhaust/tail pipe. This is not a catalytic reaction.
      The water4gas site claims a lot of things, many of them nonsense and/or contradictory. This is a good example of this in that the “HHO” is both burnt and a catalyst.
    • To me, you sound foolish.
      Maybe sometimes, yes – but not in this instance ;-)
    • You\’ve dismissed something offhand without even investigating it.
      I have dismissed it, yes, but only after careful consideration and weighing up the available evidence (i.e. none).
    • What would you have to gain, we ask? Well, you\’re publishing a book on biodiesel! Isn\’t it worth seeing if this method of using HHO works with bio-fuels *as well* as with oil-based fuels?
      Who are “we”?
      I have nothing to gain here but I do hate scams and cons; and I have a special problem with eco-scams, eco-cons and people who see environmental problems and rising fuel costs as ways of defrauding people and making a fast buck.
      The HHO “technology” will not work, so it wont work with either biofuels or fossil fuels.
    • It seems to me that a little bit of cheap experimentation on your part could thrust you into the forefront of this type of research.
      I do not wish to have any part of this “research”; it is a scam, a con, it is fraud…. why would I want to have any part of that?
    19 July 2008, 8:07 pm

  3. Phil:

    Hi Jon,

    Going back to the basics of what I see on the websites (for the sake of argument, quoting water4gas), and what I saw you saying in your original article…

    Website:
    “You generate … energy by ENHANCING the EFFICIENCY of your poorly designed engine”

    You (paraphrased):
    “if the device operated as claimed the combustion cycle would start with water and end with water while extracting usable energy, thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics, a perpetual motion machine”

    My understanding of facts given:

    • Water is separated into components H and O, which are a combustible source. When Hydrogen and Oxygen react together, they release a high amount of energy whilst leaving H2O as the only exhaust material. I think we can agree that this is fact, based on hydrogen-cells which you have yourself mentioned should not be confused with the claimed technology.
    • Next, cars use oxygen sensors to ensure the best mix of fuel and air to run the engine efficiently.
    • The gases extracted from the proposed system are released into the air-intake system. This is simply adding a more combustible mixture to normal air. Have you ever seen a broken-down car being restarted by a mechanic squirting WD40 (or a similar product) into the air hose? It’s very common, as it creates a much more combustible environment than a simple fuel/air mixture does. Ask any mechanic - really!
    • The electricity which is used to separate the water molecules is a by-product of the fuel’s combustion. You don’t run down your battery to unusable levels by having your lights on, or listening to music with the volume jacked up, do you? The separation method uses less power than a lightbulb, with very little wasted energy. It’s an efficient system.
    • It’s well-known that an injection of N2O (Nitrous Oxide, or NOX to gear-heads) will temporarily improve the performance of the car - but not for too long because it becomes dangerous. A more passive mixture of another combustible gas would surely do the same without the dangerous consequences?

    There are probably more things that I can say, but I think that says enough to at least let you consider that this may not be some horrifc scam that’s floating about and making some bloke millions. It’s probably worth a try - especially if you have the information on how to assemble one of these kits at your disposal without paying for it!

    You asked what evidence was available? Do a Google search. I can’t find anything that says it’s actually a hoax or a scam except this blog page. Maybe my search terms are bad - I’m open to being proven wrong!

    You also asked who was ‘we’? We is me. We is the Royal We. We is the viewing public. It’s a figure of speech - no need for paranoia.

    I’ve heard of some guys in Cardiff who claim to have tested the system. I’m asking them if I can take a look. I’ll get back to you on it…

    Phil

    31 July 2008, 4:30 pm

  4. Jon:

    Hi Phil,

    You are confusing several things, comparing apples with oranges.
    The bottom line is as follows:

    Remember energy is neither created or destroyed, it takes energy to separate the water into H and O, this energy comes from somewhere, your vehicles electrical system which ultimately gets its energy from the fuel. Turn up you AC, turn on the lights, turn up your music and you will use more fuel.

    The energy it take to separate the water into H and O is greater than the energy released when recombining them - this is the first law of thermodynamics, it says you can’t, at best, get more energy out than you put in.

    (but of course the con men will come straight back with some other mechanism by which it “works”, it is all part of the scam, to confuse you into trying it for yourself.)

    It is a horrific scam and some bastard is making millions. On my recent trip up and down the west coast of the USA with Greenpeace I have been approached by a dozen or so people in three weeks asking me about HHO, I am truly shocked how many people know about it and can only assume that a lot of people have bought into it. We were just promoting solar renewable energy, these people who approached me know nothing about me or this blog, they are just asking questions and happen to ask me.

    I cannot find any evidence beyond the anecdotal to back up HHO, none anywhere.

    31 July 2008, 7:48 pm

  5. Mr Malcolm Bellis:

    Hi Phil

    Yes it all sounds too good to be true. However, there will always be all sorts of counter arguements to how it might work. Without some sort of evidence of a reputable body having tried it and proving it nonsense, people will still want to believe it true. Like they say, actions speak louder then words.

    Mal

    3 August 2008, 2:55 pm

  6. Russel:

    Hi Jon,

    There was a clip on national TV here in New Zealand about someone who had fitted one of these cons and run it for 3 months. His opening comment was that it had saved him nothing in the way of fuel and he had noted no change in performance.

    Why do people continue to think they can get something for nothing?

    Here are a few details for Mr PHil to ponder.

    - The alternator on your car consumes energy from the engine in proportion to the electrical load on it.
    - Car alternators are usually 50 -60 % efficient.
    - If you are running 15 amps thru this bottle of water your engine needs to generate at least 1/2 of a HP to run the alternator.
    - Your car engine is less than 50% efficient.
    - Hydrogen has only slightly more chemical energy per kg than petrol.

    do the calculation …………

    Russell

    19 August 2008, 4:22 am

  7. Jon:

    Hi Russel,

    Thanks for your comment, very interesting to hear that NZ TV has done a test on it, you don’t recall the name of the show or anything do you?

    I have just seen an advert on Facebook trying to sell me this shit - I am about to email them to let them know it is a fraud……… there is a shop on ebay selling it…….. this page is getting tones of hits at the moment too….. and loads of people have asked me about this “technology”……. people are clearly being conned by these people at the moment….

    Jon.

    19 August 2008, 5:27 pm

  8. mah.rababah:

    hi
    i am student in engineering faculty/jordan i like search run your car on water i am need recourses about the subject can help me

    25 August 2008, 11:55 am

  9. Sergio:

    there is a One Million Dollar Challenge to who can prove this technology saves at least 25% of gas consumption.

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

    0 applicants so far! why? BECAUSE IS A SCAM!

    4 September 2008, 9:02 pm

  10. Jon:

    Thanks Sergio, a great link!

    The great “run your car on water” scam”:
    http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml

    and other fuel saving scams:
    http://www.aardvark.co.nz/fuelsaverscams.shtml

    and a load of other great resources, info and good links.

    Jon.

    4 September 2008, 9:09 pm

  11. john:

    Hi guys, can I ask why you think the missile man is only offering the million for more than 25% ?
    Could it be he knows that up to 25% might be possible? I mean if it does not work AT ALL then why does he not offer the million on that basis? I think it would still be worth doing if you could get say 10-15%

    7 September 2008, 9:27 pm

  12. Jon:

    Hi John,

    Why are you suggesting there is some validity in this “technology”? It does not work, it is a scam.

    I am not sure why Aardvark have set it at 25%, but it has to be set somewhere and my guess is that any lower could probably be too easy to attribute an increase in performance to any number of other factors.

    Visit the link below and read the section at the bottom entitled “But I had a fuel saver fitted and it works”; http://www.aardvark.co.nz/fuelsaverscams.shtml

    8 September 2008, 12:08 am

  13. john:

    Hi Jon, It just seems to me that 25% is way of the mark. Given the rules that are attached I think it would be impossible for anyone to let’s say over inflate the tyres or clamp a magnet to the fule line ect. so all I am saying is that there seems to be a gray area here. I am not saying the system works! I am just saying the that 25% or above seems odd after saying it does not work at all he seems to need a real big safty margin!

    8 September 2008, 3:20 pm

  14. Jon:

    John,
    (Don’t get me started on theose magnet things! More snake oil.) I agree, all those rules do feel a bit like belt and braces, but if HHO works, and we know it does not, then the $1000,000 should be easy for someone to claim, and they have not.
    Jon.

    8 September 2008, 4:28 pm

  15. Sam:

    To be honest I actually believe in this technology but I dont trust all the websites.
    An engine is only about 30% efficient at maximum due to heat being lost through the cylinder walls. When water is added into the combustion chamber the heat turns the water into pressure and steam so a bit more of that heat energy is being used as power and not just escaping through the cylinder walls therefore the engine runs cooler. Plus there is the added bonus of Hydrogen being flamable. I dont believe you can run a car on its own like this I just think that it could help.

    Not sure about the thermodynamic thing here though. I know it is impossible to get out more energy then you put in but the fact that an engine wastes so much energy surely it can be improved.

    I would be intrested to see what your response would be.

    11 September 2008, 12:55 am

  16. Jon:

    Hi Sam, thanks for your comment.

    You are right, ICE are inefficient, about 25% efficient, but this not relevant, you too are confusing apples with oranges, which is not surprising as their websites are designed to be confusing and muddle different concepts.

    One is not injecting water into the combustion chamber (as the British did in WW2 with Spitfires and the like) one is introducing HHO (water split into its component parts) to be burnt in the engine / act as a catalyst / whatever…

    I am completely and utterly confident that this “technology” does not work a all, not one bit, it is a con, a fraud - and anyone who buys into it is being royally screwed.

    Jon.

    11 September 2008, 1:23 am

  17. HHOTEK:

    For you to make false claims that a product does not work is ridiculous we have hundreds of very satisfied customers. We are in fact one of the few companies that are selling a unit that actually works reliably that why i have no concerns at all about putting my phone number or the parent companies name on the site. We sell a quality product that DOES increase fuel mileage, if you choose to believe the hype that the oil companies post about this technology than so be it but do not deter people who are not blinded by the big corporations from saving their hard earned money.
    If anyone has any question about this technology and how and why it works feel free to email me trevor@hhotek.com or call 828-748-7845

    Jon says ->

    Full text of HHO Tec and Jon’s deleted conversation can be viewed here:
    http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/218

    6 October 2008, 3:29 am

  18. fwwho@hotmail.com:

    Yeah yeah yeah, this is nothing but a keyboard jockey who doesn’t know a thing about what he’s talking about. Your spewing of BS Opinions on the matter doesn’t constitute evidence or any type of rebuttal against the case of HHO technology. Heck, I’ve gone from 16mpg to 27mpg in my Subaru. That’s just with a simple homemade HHO system in a Mason Jar. Thanks for getting more awareness that this technology does in fact exist. Cheers from the States!

    Jon says ->

    Not only are you a liar and a fraudster (I have deleted the link in your post to your crappy water4gas clone website), but you continue to underline my point that it is not me that needs to prove anything.

    You see I am not the one making extraordinary claims, you are… and yet you provide nothing but BS personal anecdotal evidence…

    Why do you provide no evidence? Because there is no evidence, because it is a lie.

    If you had really gone from 16mpg to 27mpg there is a $1,000,000 prize up for grabs, why don’t you claim it?

    19 October 2008, 4:57 am

  19. Charles:

    Brown;’s gas does indeed work. Water is turned into gas via electrolysis, is burned inside a car’s cylinders and the result is water. Brown’s gas supplements a car’s gasoline or diesel engine with clean burning water fuel so the cylinder can burn more cleanly and with slightly more horsepower.

    Jon says ->

    Browns gas may work, but this is not browns gas, so your point is irrelevant.

    7 November 2008, 5:22 pm

  20. ben:

    I don’t think it is a scam. I think it can be done with the right tools and competence. The products featured at [URL deleted by admin - it is just another W4g clone] are very useful and informative.

    12 November 2008, 2:19 am

  21. david:

    I have looked at some of these websites and ebay adverts proclaiming this technology.
    All they want to sell you is a book on how to convert your car.
    If it was sucha brilliant and genuine breakthrough in fuel economy someone would be manufacturing conversion kits by now! Someone would have been on The Dragons Den looking for investment possibly.
    The fact that no-one has looks fishy to me (I\’m non technical) I wasn\’t born yesterday.
    Why has the motoring organisations, the AA or RAC taken an interest?
    I emailed Top Gear asking them if they would consider trying out the technology, ina similar way to them putting chip-pan oil in a volvo some time ago. A total absence of a response - I wonder why?

    3 December 2008, 6:53 am

  22. Agent K:

    You know something Jon, I’m suprised you have that degree in physics. I only have an A-Level and I think I have a better grasp of it than you.

    [Comment edited by Admin - Agent K blathers on and on and on about nothing of any substance, he says nothing with any actual grounding in reality, he suggests that Jon does not know what he is talking about, he goes on to repeat all the usual nonsense about how HHO "works" and yet provides no proof whatsoever that any of it is anything but a con, he also suggests that Jon is not "open minded".... and suggests that his wife, who apparently has a PHD in Physics, is looking onto HHO.]

    Oil is running out and as a wise man once said, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

    22 December 2008, 8:40 am

  23. Jon:

    Agent K stop wasting my time, your just another con man trying to bamboozle people into trying this nonsense. Please provide some proof or shut up, simple as that.

    22 December 2008, 9:49 am

  24. Agent K:

    Nope not trying to bamboozle anyone! As I said, I ‘m getting in touch with my mechanic friends to build and test one mainly because my wife (+PHD) has gone through the physics and has said ‘It’s possible up to a limit’ so an increase in basic ICE running and efficiency is’t science fiction. Sorry but PHD in high energy physics beats degree in physics any day of the week. I’m sorry but I feel that there could be an attempt at an explaination but until the paper has been published you won’t be getting your proof, and I would guess that you have some idea of how long papers take to write.

    BTW Caps were added because even though basic 1st year degree physics were being explained to you, you were still not moving from your concrete boots position.

    I’m wondering if you’ve also thought about the implications of attempting to convert the planet to bio-fuels without another 2 earths to sustain the supply?

    I also am under the impression that Greenpeace have not endorsed the bio-fuel plan or willing to consider it because of that basic and huge flaw.

    While I believe firmly that alternative energy is definitely the way forward, perfecting a system that lowers the amount of fuel currently used until these alternatives become affordable is a definite step forwad. If anything you seem very closed minded to anything that is not in your company’s catalogue.

    The company you work for by the way also does not give prices for it’s products until you’ve registered your details with them. A tactic often used by scamming companies to ensure they have your personal details before you can say no to the price.

    Don’t worry Jon. I’m not going to try and explain anything else here on your site as you have taken it upon yourself to edit and delete anything that you do not agree with. Enjoy your ’little’ space on the internet where you can enjoy your fascist beliefs.

    22 December 2008, 9:57 am

  25. Jon:

    What is this, Physics Top Trumps? It is irrelevant how well qualified your wife is, HHO is still a scam. There is no proof whatsoever that any of it is anything other than risible nonsense, it makes no difference if you are married to Einstein, HHO is still a scam.

    As for you comments on biofuels and Greenpeace and the company I work for (erm, who? I’m self employed!?!)…. what has this to do with HHO being a scam or proof that it is not? Nothing whatsoever.

    I will edit and delete comments on my web site which I deem to be deliberately muddling the debate – there are thousands of sites on the internet where you can prattle on about irrelevant tangential sidetracks and attempt to bamboozle in the style of confidence tricksters everywhere, but here on Jon’s Blog I am only interested one thing – what is true; evidence and proof – and attempting to draw me off in an irrelevant debate and calling me names will just get your comment deleted.

    Again I ask you for one extraordinary simple thing; to provide some proof.

    22 December 2008, 10:47 am

  26. gerry:

    JON You claim to be of a scientific backround . You ask for proof but instead of asking for proof, should you perhaps be debunking these systems by presenting your own personal detailed experimental evidence,instead of just accepting other peoples perhaps floored results as evidence. You should abide by the sciantific maxim. First prove impiricaly yourself by fieldwork and experimentation over a reasonable time scale and take nothing for granted .I say this as a bystander who agrees that energy canot be destroyed but only its state can be changed .

    16 January 2009, 9:56 am

  27. Jon:

    Hi Gerry,
    This is, as i understand it, a common misconception of the scientific process - I am not making any claim and therefore have nothing I can or cannot prove, it is the HHO people who are making a claim and the burden of proof is entirely on them.
    What is more, their claim is quite extraordinary, it violates many very solid laws of physics, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
    Furthermore, it is rather hard, scientifically, to set out to prove a negative result, but the HHO people are claiming very substantial positives, 50% is common, and so it should be very easy for them to prove it that works.
    So you have to ask yourself why this proof is not out there? Could it be because the claim is not true, even that it is a lie and a scam?
    Jon.

    16 January 2009, 6:37 pm

  28. Justin Canham:

    Well done for exposing this scam. It is quite amazing that the defenders of this nonsense use the very same techniques, that you warn us about, on this forum to try and confuse. They clearly never give up.

    27 February 2009, 7:53 pm

  29. Neil Cubitt:

    New to this, very tempting to tinker, having read through tons of BS and anecdotal evidence the only clear reasoned statements I can find are here so thanks for the blog. I would like substantiated proof or clear theoretical statements but despite hrs of searching I\\\’m loosing interest. I do surmise the inherent inefficiency of our ICE and fuel systems that are focused on passing arbitrary emissions tests and at the same time being user friendly to the masses the result is less than ideal economy. I do think stuffing HHO in the intake in some cases cons the crude systems which results in mpg improvement but not in the way the HHO brigade claim.

    19 March 2009, 9:06 am

  30. Dave:

    There are some simple questions that ‘believers’in any cheap fuel-saving system could put to themselves.

    But first, I ask you to agree that anybody who devised a cheap system that reliably made engines 50% or 25% or even 10% more fuel efficient would have discovered something worth millions. Car makers in particular would be climbing over each other to get hold of it.

    Secondly, I ask you to agree that a fair and impartial test of this or any technology making similar claims is quite simple to arrange. Moreover, it could be arranged in such a way that all who witnessed it could replicate it, given the resources, and verify the results. For example, official fuel consumption figures in the UK are determined in a laboratory controlled by a pre-determined computerised protocol. This cuts out many of the variables that are otherwise uncontrollable - road conditions, weather conditions, and so on.

    Why, then, if such tests are feasible, have purveyors of these devices not had them tested in this way? If I believed I had invented such a device, I would arrange this immediately, knowing that the returns on my investment (no matter how costly the testing turned out to be) would be enormous.

    There are two answers.

    Either, the purveyors of these devices know that they don’t work.

    Or, they believe they work because they have no understanding of what constitutes a fair test because they have no understanding of scientific method.

    I believe Jon has already made this distinction - purveyors are either fraudsters, or ignorant of science.

    Prospective purchasers are an interesting group. Some want it to be true (Actually, I WISH it were true, too, but I believe it is not) and so manage to convince themselves. They are often attracted to what I call the ‘paranoid position’- they believe that oil companies and car companies and others who have more power than they do are keeping them in the dark, exploiting them. There is always a ‘they’for this group (governments, neighbours, ethnic minorities) on whom they can blame all the misfortunes that are apparent in their own lives.

    Nothing Jon or any other skeptic can say will dislodge them from their belief, simply because it is so important for their own mental composure to think like this.

    So, purveyors, will you invest in a fair test, given that you have so much to gain? If not, why not? That’s the most important question.

    Dave

    9 April 2009, 2:43 pm

  31. alerick:

    Hi jon.
    well at last someone who speaks sense..
    i pity the poor fools who let themselves be conned by these unscrupulous scam artists.
    i live by the old maxim… if it looks too good to be true… it probably is.
    thanks for the great blog.
    alerick

    20 April 2009, 2:43 pm

  32. Jamie:

    AT LAST SOMEONE HAS COME TO THE RESCUE!! THANK YOU SO MUCH. UNFORTUNATELY IT’S TOO LATE FOR ME AND I ‘WANTED TO BELIEVE’, AND FELL FOR BUYING A KIT LAST YEAR. TOTAL CON!! I’M TURNING RED AS I TYPE!! DOESN’T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE I’VE SAVED LOADS OF MONEY BY RUNNING MY CAR ON BIODIESEL / VEG OIL. WATCH OUT EVERYONE BECAUSE THE SCAMMERS HAVE INCLUDED THE WORDS ‘CON’, ‘RIP OFF’ ETC IN THEIR OWN WEBTEXT SO YOU ONLY GET THEIR WEBSITES WHEN YOU TRY AND FIND SOME DIRT ON THEM THROUGH SEARCHES, AND THIS KEEPS YOU CONFUSED.

    24 April 2009, 11:34 pm

  33. Eric of Utah:

    Jon, I think you’re performing a public service. I’m a skeptic. And I agree with your take on the scientific method: the burden of proof is not on you, it’s on the people making the claim. There is a dearth of controlled, reproducible evidence here. And I am kinda frightened that just about every single site I clicked on which claimed to provide a non-biased evaluation of the technology was actually selling HHO systems or plans for HHO systems…
    Please, however, for non-Ph.D. ignoramuses such as myself, would you explain where the commercial HHO kits fall short in terms of the phenomenon of ‘hydrogen fuel enhancement,’ i.e. shooting hydrogen directly into the intake to allow a leaner burn? Are we talking about orders of magnitude too little hydrogen to make a difference? I’m getting my info. from Wikipedia, which is about the most reliable website I’ve found so far, except for this one (think not? See this link from the site, which doesn’t cast the technology in a very favorable light:
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/64717/cat/84/Default.aspx )
    I think the famous debunker James Randi has a similar monetary offer, by the way, and I don’t think anybody has claimed his money either.

    8 November 2009, 11:57 am

  34. University Of Kent at Canterbury endorse and award con men! at JonStarbuck.co.uk:

    [...] scam is yet another version of the HHO, run-your-car-on-water scam. This is so depressing I don’t know where to begin in expressing my outrage and infuriation [...]

    21 November 2009, 1:01 pm

  35. myhydrogen.co.uk - yet another HHO scam in the UK at JonStarbuck.co.uk:

    [...] are just another example of HHO, run-your-car-on-water scams popping up in the UK in recent [...]

    27 November 2009, 11:20 am

  36. excelprotolec:

    Your right, you cant get more MPG burning hydrogen with you petrol no more than you could build some kind of rocket device to take man to the moon and land on it!

    There, I rest my case!

    29 November 2009, 7:25 pm

  37. Jon:

    excelprotolec, that does not even make any sense. You are clearly an imbecile.

    29 November 2009, 7:49 pm

  38. dvldoc:

    The HHO scam can be only likened to one thing and that is a cult. They are willing to believe no matter what, proof is not important, the fact that people jump on and post fake claims as soon as you start any HHO thread is not important.

    You cannot find one HHO thread anywere with a OBD-2 monitored fuel consumption test, Dyno rolling road test, certified emission test (system on then system off) Period!!

    This was started as a scam and continues to be one. There is a reason the FTC has sued theses places in the states about their false claims.

    EPA testing has been done on these system and they failed and showed no gains. Check out the dateline NBC story on it.

    All HHO threads end the same, I did this, I changed that, I’m still testing, I’m upgrading, tech babble tech babble, the thread dies with no proof.

    Prove me wrong.

    11 December 2009, 6:30 am

  39. Carbon Clean Direct is another HHO scam at JonStarbuck.co.uk:

    [...] hydrogen hybrid (or whatever you/they want to call it today, it is all the same thing) scam which I have been blogging about for years. Their product does not work, indeed cannot work, it is preposterous pseudo-scientific [...]

    11 December 2009, 2:25 pm

  40. DJK:

    A friend of mine contacted me regarding one of these schemes claiming to produce ‘browns gas’ - a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. I worked at Ford Motor Co for 14 years developing technology to reduce fuel consumption. Here was my response:

    I think the simplest way of looking at this is from an energy perspective. What they are suggesting is that you use electrical energy from the car’s battery or alternator to electrolyse water held in a container and then feed the resulting mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas into the engine to dramatically improve your fuel economy.

    Where are you getting the energy to electrolyse the water from though? You’re applying a load to the battery which is being charged by an alternator running off your engine. You know that vehicle internal combustion engines are about 30% efficient at converting liquid fuel energy into mechanical energy, which is then used to drive an alternator, which is maybe 80% efficient at generating electricity to electrolyse the water. I’m not sure what the efficiency of the electrolysis process is, but I am sure that burning the resulting gases in the engine will result in a maximum of 30% of the energy that was contained in them being available to turn the alternator / drive the car etc. (given that the engine wasn’t even designed to operate on those gases). So you’re getting less energy back than it’s costing you which of course makes sense when you remember the laws of energy conservation and the fact that lots of it has just been turned into heat and noise.

    The reality of these kits is that they take very little energy from the alternator, convert small amounts of water to gas, and actually make no difference whatsoever. However since mpg can fluctuate according to vehicle usage, weather, driving style etc. and the people that fit them have just spent lots of money, they will inevitably associate any small positive mpg changes with the kit and ignore the times that it’s worse.

    As an example that the kit will make no difference, one website quotes “1 quart of water creates 1800 gallons of gas which can last months”.

    The gas you make is a mixture of hydrogen which you can burn and oxygen which is needed for combustion.

    However 1 quart of water doesn’t make 1800 gallons. 1 quart is roughly 1 litre and water has a density of 1kg/litre.

    Since water is H20, every molecule of water generates 1 molecule of hydrogen (H2) and half a molecule of O2.

    Water (H2O)’s molecular weight is 18g/mole
    Hydrogen (H2)’s weight is 2g/mole
    Oxygen (O2)’s weight is 32g/mole

    So 18g of water will generate 2g of hydrogen and 32/2=16g of oxygen.

    Of course a gases density varies according to temperature and pressure, but at standard conditions,
    Hydrogen’s density is 0.0898g/L and Oxygen’s density is 1.429g/L so this is 2/0.0898 = 22.3L of hydrogen and 16/1.429 = 11.2L of oxygen.
    A total of 33.5L of gas

    So 1000g of water will produce 1000/18×22.3 = 1239 litres of hydrogen and 1000/18×11.2=622 litres of oxygen. (A total of 1861 litres not 1800 gallons!).

    The energy density of uncompressed hydrogen is 0.01MJ/litre.
    The energy density of gasoline is 35MJ/litre.

    So 1239 litres of hydrogen = 12.39MJ of energy, or the equivalent of about 0.35 litres of gasoline!

    So you can see that about a third of a litre of gasoline, minus the energy required to electrolyse the water, taking into account the fact the engine’s not designed to efficiently burn hydrogen will not go very far over several months!!!

    So, yes, of course it’s bollocks. An even simpler way of looking at it would be to ask yourself how it could be that multi-national car companies with huge R&D facilities missed a simple $150 modification that reduces fuel use by 40%!

    11 December 2009, 6:31 pm

  41. DJK:

    PS Check out this article - not at all scientific, but he came to the same conclusion:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

    11 December 2009, 6:40 pm

  42. Jon:

    Fantastic response, I thank you DJK!!

    Of course, being a scam, the scammers have several pseudo-scientific nonsense responses to you rational and scientific reasoning. Debunk one method by which it “works” and two new ones pop up, smoke and mirrors, it gets very tedious responding to them.

    11 December 2009, 6:47 pm

  43. Hydrox Solutions, another HHO product with university endorsement at JonStarbuck.co.uk:

    [...] have been blogging about HHO for years now. One of the tools I use to try to explain to people that this “technology” does not [...]

    22 December 2009, 9:22 am

  44. Oxygen sensors for use with HHO at JonStarbuck.co.uk:

    [...] will often tell their customers that the reason the HHO machine is not saving any fuel is not because HHO is bullshit but because the engine is “too modern” and the ECU is compensation against the HHO [...]

    9 February 2010, 5:46 pm

  45. eco-scams.com » Blog Archive » Hydrotechnix - more HHO scams in the UK:

    [...] a mere £1500 on a course they run in Spain. A barging if it were true, but it is not… it is another HHO run-your-car-on-water scam clone, complete [...]

    22 February 2010, 12:54 am

  46. eco-scams.com » Blog Archive » More MPG Now - HHO nonsense in London:

    [...] Here is why HHO is nonsense: http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/141 [...]

    15 March 2010, 4:14 am

  47. eco-scams.com » Blog Archive » The Jubycell - yet more HHO bullshit in the UK:

    [...] You can read about HHO, Hydroxy, hydrogen-hybrids (all the same thing, all bullshit) on my blog. [...]

    20 March 2010, 5:43 pm

  48. eco-scams.com » Blog Archive » More British HHO scams - HHO Fuel Soutwest and HHO4U:

    [...] Both sites make the same preposterous claims of reduced fuel consumption and cleaner emissions as every other pedaller of this nonsense. There is no prof that any of their claims are true for the simple reason that it is not true, it is a scam. [...]

    26 April 2010, 4:47 pm

  49. Denis:

    I know someone who made and fitted a device like these back in the 1960’s. It was used on an old Austin 7 saloon and DID improve the mileage by a good bit more than 5per cent. It seemed to be made of odd bits of metal, wires and a tube to the carburreta.

    I have never seen anything lke it since but due to the rising fuel prices I found the gas4free site you refer to and, sadly, bought the $97 book :-( Here it is on your site for free.

    As I had memories of this previous hho attempt I was going to try it and still might. However, you have saved me the expense of considering a course and the promise of a “future lucrative career” in this industry

    7 May 2010, 9:41 pm

  50. roshbeef:

    Thanks for the low down gys, I almost parted on this course at £999, but after reading the blogs, it was too good to be true so glad I investigated thsi first, thanks for your help!! don’t be foole if it is too good to be true it probably is!

    18 May 2010, 2:36 pm

  51. RobertMW:

    Good point Jon, to think, that if this wasn’t a scam, auto companies would have put these on all of their vehicles, especially their SUVs and trucks to continue being competitive with cars and hybrids. Honestly, if GM had to choose between getting rid of their popular Hummer line or installing this device in them and making them go from 19 to 35 MPG and still continue making profits off of Hummer, what do you think they’d do? If this was a real working device, Hummer would still be around and people wouldn’t be complaining of gas prices cause $3/gallon is no big deal when your car goes from 35 (base) to 50 MPG (HHO)

    16 July 2010, 11:39 pm

Leave a comment