waterboost.co.uk sue me please!
Oliver from waterboost.co.uk (yet another HHO scam in the UK), has emailed me to say (among a load of truly odd and random comments) I should be very careful what I say to or about him and his company and their products as I don’t want to end up in a court room with him.
I presume he is talking about me being careful not to say that waterboost.co.uk is a scam, that the product they sell does not work, that anyone who tells you differently is either a con man or very mistaken… Oliver, but I’d love to end up in a court room with you and your kind, so here goes:
Waterboost, who also seem to be known as Sonic Reflex (a cannabis seed selling company), of Hindle St. Accrington (England) sell a product which does not do what they it says to does.
Buying one if their “Water Boost”, HHO, run-your-car-on-water, hydrogen fuel systems, will not save you any fuel at all, in fact it ought to result in more fuel being burned not less. The claims of test results indicating a near 100% increase in MPG are nonsense. The vast majority, if not all, of the information on their website about how it “works” (it does not work) is meaningless pseudo-scientific nonsense .
Principally, Oliver and Waterboost have no evidence whatsoever (beyond the anecdotal and deeply unreliable) to suggest that their product, or any similar product, does anything helpful whatsoever. Indeed there is no science, theory or method by which it could work… in order to work it would actually need to break several laws of physics.
Why does their evidence, science and theory not exist? Because their “technology” is nonsense.
Am I scared? No! I am 100% certain that Oliver is, at best, wrong (and at worst, a con man); he will not be the first person the threaten me with court action and not follow through, I’m not holding my breath for the summons…
Waterboost.co.uk is registered to: Oliver Smith, 3 Gorsey Brow, Standish, Wigan, Lancashire, WN6 0SP
Oliver Smith:
This man is very sad… he doesnt discuss anything… he is angry and mentally ill… I have reported JONSTARBUCK to the authorities…
I have provided proof… that JON KNOWS NOTHING!
I dont sell cannabis seeds and never have!
I’m not going to sue you John, I feel sorry for you!
22 September 2009, 9:37 amJon:
Whatever, Oliver… I’m not prepared to be dragged into silly arguments about the nature of the truth, or science, or conspiracy theories, or how you know better than people who went to university… it gets very tedious… you want to share your “proof” with the rest of the world? Because you have not shown me anything.
Please note, any responses which not about the subject in hand, any deliberate sidetracks or attempts to get the discussion off topic, anything other than directly address proof your system works, or a method by which it works, or how it does not break conservation of energy laws… (basically, stick to the topic) will be deleted. Frankly I don’t have the time to explain elementary science to you.
(and FYI… you are the one reported to the authorities not me, I reported you to Trading Standards – they contacted you yet?)
23 September 2009, 1:34 amSam:
I feel that if you are so intent on proving the system doesn’t work you should “explain the elemetary sciences” you see Jon you are missing the point completly we are not currently selling a product which makes your can run soley on water. I mean that would be crazy lol x
13 October 2009, 5:02 pmJon:
As I have said a million times; I don’t need to prove anything, you do, because I’m not claiming anything, you are. To prove a negative is a hard thing but you are claiming, among other things, an enormous improvement in MPG and yet you have no proof whatsoever. Why do you have no proof? Because it is not true.
At no point do I clam your product means your car can run solely on water, nowhere. I’m presuming you don’t know the difference between a 100% increase in MPG and a 100% replacement?
16 October 2009, 2:32 ampaul:
Hello Jon.
I was very interested to read your ‘report’ about Oliver’s system. It would seem that you have either a spare spanner to ‘throw in’ concerning the liberation of the masses from the clutches of oil based fuel magnates OR you’re simply a moronic simpleton with no idea about the nature of hydrogen!? (Tick as appropriate…)
As elementary schoolboy science PROVES, hydrogen is a hugely combustible gas and is freely available being that it bonds to practically EVERY other molecule in this part of the universe.
Perhaps a little research on your part wouldn’t go amiss unless you know something more than the Nazi’s did!? They had a huge thing going on with hydrogen AND helium as primary fuels.
Regarding your proving anything to Oliver, it would seem that you’re also oblivious to the processes of LAW (which I can tell you from personal experience, Oliver is NOT). You have made statements here that are unquestionably erroneous, misinformed, and stand as evidence that you are or should be engaged in a libel suit. The burdon of proof would be entirely YOURS being that you claim he’s a conman and of generally unsavoury character.
Oliver would eat you for breakfast if he so chose, and could easily make your life quite miserable (more so than it already sounds…) – and the fact that he hasn’t I would advise, is simply down to his good natured, open minded approach in tolerating idiots.
I can tell you completely for free – from first hand experience that the systems Oliver produces DO indeed work and do NOT conflict with scientific understanding and principles of physics.
The only thing here with any conflict is YOU and the questions I now have are;
1/. Who are you working for?
2/. What is their agenda in discrediting Oliver?
and
3/. Do you normally publish your stupidity for all the world to read or is this the first time?
I would heartily recommend that you visit Oliver, have a look at the systems, and see for yourself that what he has done is merely re-arrange scientific principle to better suit the environment, the human race and ultimately the freedom of our kind.
Are you having fun yet?
Regards
13 July 2010, 5:31 pmPaul
Chris:
@Paul – “As elementary schoolboy science PROVES, hydrogen is a hugely combustible gas and is freely available being that it bonds to practically EVERY other molecule in this part of the universe.”
Hydrogen that is bonded to another molecule is not combustible! In water hydrogen is bonded to oxygen. Energy is required to break this bond and liberate the hydrogen. Combustion of this liberated hydrogen only ever release _the_same_ energy that was used to break the bonds and liberate it from the water.
In a car using an HHO systems kinetic energy from the engine is first converted to electrical energy by the alternator. This electrical energy is then used to electrolyse/split water into HHO – another energy conversion: from electrical energy to chemical/potential energy. When the HHO is subsequently recombined in the combustion engine it can only release the energy that was imparted to it during electrolysis, which in turn came from electrical energy generated by the alternator, which in turn came from the kinetic energy of the combustion engine.
In other words _it’s_the_same_energy_ being passed along the chain. There is no net increase in energy – there can’t be: it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. In fact, because at each stage of conversion there are inevitable losses of energy (heat) due to inefficiency (eg friction in the alternator), less energy is recouped from the HHO than is required to liberate it from water – a car with an HHO system will be LESS efficeint than one without!
“you’re simply a moronic simpleton with no idea about the nature of hydrogen!? (Tick as appropriate…)”
Oh the irony.
—
BTW I saw this Oliver Smith chap deliver a talk on his HHO systems and the guy is without doubt a complete fraud. When I challenged him (I pretty much said what I wrote above) he completely ignored my questions choosing to go off on a strange waffling digression about Einstein being in on the conspiracy or something!
28 July 2011, 2:28 pmOilburner:
I had a similar experience from an equally charming character at WaterBoost threatening me with legal action etc. . The claims are absolute and total rubbish (I have a Masters Degree in Combustion and energy so I am not totally uninformed). If the device did what they claim they would do back to back tests and prove it…but it doesn’t work.
To claim that he can double the MPG of a ford KA are totally unhinged. To increase the thermal efficiency of the engine from say 25% at best to 50% at by somehow modifying the fuel burning characteristics is impossible…for various rather boring reasons to do with the carnot cyle and what thermodynamicists call the ideal engine.
3 September 2011, 1:24 amDont waste your money is my advice
neil:
i have been assisting in the building of hydrogen cells and also experiments on running engines on hydrogen. and 3 years later im still not convinced that hydrogen will ever be used as the next main fuel for cars. its so messy to produce. couldnt be simplified for comercail use. the cells need alot of maintenance.the electricity you need to produce the hydrogen outways the hydrogen produced. believe me, no big oil compant feels even an iota of threat from hydrogen cells. and if they did they would buy it off you. its obvious that electric cars will superceed internal combustion. or a hybrid small engine run off sunflower oil to charge batteries. batteries are becoming smaller and more efficient and cars can be made out of kevlar… plastic electric cars, hyfrogen is old hat. used on cars way before you would think. big balloon sacks on top of old morrises ….its all been done one way or another. so stop squabbling children. solar cells wind power. plug your car in your free power… its all coming. the future is electric.hi tec.
20 September 2011, 7:58 pmJon:
Hi Niel, I think you are quite correct in everything you say. However don’t fall for their trick of confusing real hydrogen technologies with their HHO, hydrogen supplementary on-board-generator claptrap – they are entirely different animals. Thanks, Jon.
20 September 2011, 8:40 pmJamie:
I know of 2 people that have Waterboost and it works so stop talking a load of rubbish you people that are trying to bring this man down..
21 September 2011, 7:16 amWho are you working for? Ummmmmm I wonder!
It works and thats that
-
Why are my comments awaiting moderation? Is this Nazi UK ahem I mean Germany.
FREE SPEECH
-
Notice to Mods: My email address can be posted
This does work
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/search.php
Type in Waterboost see the posts from Ceylon, for all those trolls why dont you put your money where your mouth is and go and get one fitted
Jon:
Jamie,
21 September 2011, 8:41 amSo many logical fallacies that I don’t know where to start (and can’t be bothered). You are new to this, aren’t you?
Comments are moderated to stop spam and Trolls not to stop free speech, silly.
Science says this is nonsense. This does not stop people believing in it… but then that is what science is for, to try to separate what we think to be true from what is true. If you can show that it works then please be my guest, science will love you for it (in fact, I will love you for it). But, as we all know, no amount of anecdotes will ever equal actual scientific data. We are all fallible humans, you need a controlled environment (free of bias) to truly evaluate if this works. So far every time this has been done it has been found that there is no advantage to using this “technology” (in fact there has been shown that there is an actual disadvantage, several times).
If you have anything worth consideration to this discussion then I will approve it in a flash. However any more “my mate did it and he said it works” won’t quite cut it.
Respectfully,
Jon.
Rory:
I as yet have not used Waterboost but I have used similar products.
On my Toyota surf 3L my MPG increased from 18 to 29 ( I do a lot of towing)
On my Shogan 3.2 the MPG increased from 29 to 44mpg, (no not a misprint) also emissions have dropped to 0.3 ,
I don’t profess to know the science behind it and really, I don’t care about the science behind it.
All I know is it works for me.
Try it first.
If it doesn’t work for you then, and only then, can you shoot him down .
Don’t knock it till you try it.
21 September 2011, 8:31 pmJon:
Rory,
21 September 2011, 8:57 pmYou get a 50% increase in your MPG? No you you don’t, you would have to be retarded to believe that.
Do I really have to explain why me trying it would not prove anything? Really? If I tried it and found it not to work, which I would, then how would you react? Yes, exactly. My test result would be as meaningless as yours. That is why it has to be tested in the lab, and every single time it has been tested in a lab it has been found to be complete bollocks. Surprise surprise.
Kenneth R Moore:
More anecdotal ‘evidence’ that is meaningless.
If these devices really worked someone would have done proper trials and published the results by now.
Using MOT station smoke opacity tests is meaningless..I can get a 0.3 drop by high revving any car in low gear to blow the soot out of the exhaust prior to the test . Temperature, humidity and fuel can also effect the readings…
Jon – if you are reading this you might like to check out the September issue of ‘Car Mechanics’ magazine.
They did a follow up article on the ‘Waterboost’ after featuring it on the front cover previously and the results showed that the device increased fuel consumption slightly..or at best it made no difference.
They don’t admit to this but if you average their consumption readings the MPG drops by 0.3 with the Waterboost fitted.
How hard can it be to put a vehicle on a dyno and measure horsepower and fuel consumption with/without hydrogen injection switched on . Lets see what the efficiency of the engine is in each case.
All that is needed is a brief description of the test and two graphs..power versus rate of fuel used showing more power with less fuel and nit pickers like me will go away and shut up…
7 November 2011, 3:40 pmKenneth R Moore:
Rory,
7 November 2011, 3:49 pm44 MPG is high for a 3.2 litre 4 wd ..how was your MPG calculated ?.
Trip computer- over how many miles ?
Or did you brim the tank and record miles travelled. Over how many tankfulls did you average to get the 44MPG. Could you post your fuel used and miles travelled data ?
I can easy get 70 MPG driving from the hills down to the coast at sea level. Then I get more like 40 MPG going back.
Without qualifying your figures they are meaningless…
Rory:
I see that this site is “selective” obout what it publishes.
and only posts nocking the systems are allowed. My previous posts have not made it through “moderation”
If you don’t believe in the technoligy – don’t use it.
I believe in it – I use it.
This site appears to be a pedastal for Jon to insult people at a “safe” distance.
Assuming that this posting gets through “moderation” – measurements were done over seven (7) tankfulls.
Due to the distastefull & insulting nature of thes site this will be my last posting.
Rory
10 November 2011, 9:56 amJon:
Rory,
10 November 2011, 9:04 pmThe only way I am selective about what I publish is that I don’t allow spam and I remove links to people’s HHO selling websites. The overwhelming majority of posts to this site are pro-HHO and quite abusive towards me, they almost all get through moderation.
If you believe in HHO and want to use it then fine, go ahead. It is the point at which people start selling it, and therefore telling lies and and scamming people that don’t have the intellectual tool kit of critical thinking to fight you off, then I have an issue with it. It is a lot like how I feel about God, believe what you like but don’t tell lies to children about things you can’t possibly know to be true.
This is my website, if people come on here and abuse me then I will take great pleasure in pointing out how stupid they are. I did not call you retarded, but I can see how you have read it that way and I am sorry about that. You don’t get 50% more MPG from your car because of your HHO, there is some other explanation for it, you are mistaken, and the oly way to find out the truth is to blind your experiment and put in some controls, otherwise you will never know if the effect is real or what is causing it.
Regards,
Jon.
miciGi:
hydrogen generator produces molecules at the same energy level these combine in a different manner to molecules from a random stored source, ignite more uniformly and have a controled flame front. disspersed though the mixture they possibly provide critical load induced enhancement to the flamfront quality of the combustion process.were are not driving an ideal engine we are driving vehicles that have gears and have to get up hills accelerate to high speeds the ability to change gear much sooner due to increased acceleration alone would account for a great deal of improved performance.above and beyond the limits of the thermo cycle.Carnot or otherwise. eg bourke cycle. stoichiometric ratio for for petrol is 14.7 to 1 but few cars or engines use this amount of fuel because load conditions are the governing factor in normally aspirated engines indeed cars with much lower burn ratios use significantly more fuel than the 14.7 to 1 figure. Rather than all the nastiness why dont you actually engage lets talk about the chemistry maths and physics and actually learn something,from each other. This is not a disinterested rant i know oliver he is a man of the utmost integrity a truly caring individual and a total believer in real value for real money.The standard of engineering on all his devices and projects is excellent or it doesnt pass, his standards are Very high and inclusive.This is a field of endeavour for oliver a challenge and a vocation.It isnt a money making scam in anyway.The guy is a brilliant engineer a novel thinker and a upright man of the first order.want to test one for half price ?? i will go halves with you on the device. you test it i will observe and we can give our joint… still effectively anecdotal, but as objective as possible report. by the way did you know..these waterboost units work perfectly with the addition of a torch for 25 quid as a perspex polisher.. the cheepest of which are around 300 pounds.I have seen the power and strange capacity of this particular type of flame.. ie recombined molecules of hydrogen and oxygen it was known to me as fould’s gas before i met oliver.. and he did not know this term.you really should have a look at one of his devices close up.Ohh and the kit some one shows may all be very interesting i havent even looked if it has items in common with olivers kit but where is the actual hydrogen generator…? its a finely engineered gas proof welded stainless steel unit about 30 cm long and whatever is in the kit the cost of the until is mostly in the generator.. i dont even know how much olivers units or kits are.. but i would love one.chill out make sense when you can try not to dis anybody as you debunk… if you dont know them you dont know them… it may all be a delusion apparition… or religious fervour of somekind who knows… but dont get personal it clouds any salient issues. thanks for not editing,and allowing discussion.well done.
10 November 2011, 9:19 pmJon:
miciGi,
10 November 2011, 9:22 pmProof by verbosity…. I can’t be bothered to read all that, what I have read of it is rambling nonsense. Do you have a point?
Jon.
miciGi:
The point is Jon, your a tosser…. lol
12 November 2011, 12:41 pmJon:
“your [sic] a tosser”? If were an 8 year old and not a grown man that may make me cry :’-(
12 November 2011, 10:35 pmI suggest you run along back to class where maybe you will get taught the difference between “your” and “you’r”.
Idiot.
miciGi:
wasnt acually me made that comment but i can empathise with the maker….ok which part of any part of any science.. DO you understand…? thought i was speaking to a dubunker expert. carnot cycle is theoretical limit in the real world an engine typically with effeiency of 57 percent found to have actuall effeciancy of 18 percent… so some way before limits are reached… this example was from a steam engine… but you see my point… or probably you will not because you cant be bothered… ratio of burnt petrol to oxegen… by mass. is stoichoimetric ratio… and it happens to be 14.7 to 1 in a normally aspirated engine….make the ratio much thinner and you get too high a spark and combustion temp holes in pistons plugs burnt away pitting and hot running. make the ratio much more…and you get smoke from incomplete combustion and or unburnt fuel in the exhaust.the amount of fuel is matched to the amount of air you can put through the engine… not the carnot cycle.More than three lines too much… ok no prob wont waste any more time on you. Thanks It was fun… miciGi
15 November 2011, 2:54 amJon:
Yea, I have heard all of this before, like a thousand times, it does not mean it makes any sense. What has any of this got to do with HHO? Why do I have to spend my life debunking every random stream of nonsense to leave some crackpot’s head? You are putting the cart a long way in front of the horse. We don’t need a how it works when we have no reason whatsoever to think it does work. All I am asking for is some evidence that it works and no one can provide it (i can provide plenty of examples where it has been shown to not work). Why can no one provide robust scientific, repeatable, testable, data controlled from a controlled scientific test? Because, beyond what any reasonable person would consider reasonable , it does not work.
15 November 2011, 3:08 amKenneth R Moore:
MiciGi – That’s grade A Buuuuullshiiiit of the highest order!. You would make a great salesman with an ability like that to write complete and utter bollocks.World class mate.
Shame about the childish ad-hominem attack though – just makes you look like you have lost the argument (well you have but a slick salesman shouldn’t make it look so obvious)
Keep up the good work Jon – if your annoying these people your doing the right thing!.
9 December 2011, 3:33 amMike:
I’ve just seen the waterboost on TV; now I’m here because it looks to be an interesting idea, but I am not a scientist, so I’m searching for reviews and comments…I just have to submit the following comment: “Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, if you cannot spell, or if you do not care that what you publish seems to be the raving of an intoxicated seven year old boy with learning difficulties, how do you expect anyone to take any of it seriously?” I am fully aware of “planned obsolescence” and I am not sufficiently naive to dismiss the potential for an “eco-scam,” but I believe I saw enough footage to suggest the lack of ‘proper’ scientific data is due to the fact that this technology is being developed by a few northern blokes in a garage, who clearly have not the resources to run a laboratory. He’s got a MkII Golf and a Reliant, for fuck’s sake.
28 December 2011, 11:15 pmJon:
Hi Mike,
28 December 2011, 11:34 pmSo you will find lots of positive reviews on line for this stuff, these guys are professional con men, they spend a lot of time giving their own product glowing reviews. They even copy-and-paste the testimonials from one site to another. What you will NEVER find is any hard, robust science. Just made up testimonials and false reviews.
Ken:
Well Jon, I’ve just come across your comments and find them quite distasteful!
Next you will be saying that the Bank of England is not a private Ltd Co. But it is! OR that BRENDAN BARBER (head of the Trades Union Congress) is not a Director of the B of E BUT HE IS!
Just watch out Jon and dont go too near the edge of that water, You might fall over the edge!
What a knuckle dragging dickhead you REALLY are!!!
1 January 2012, 7:52 pmJon:
???
1 January 2012, 9:13 pmbrian:
I’ve been looking at this alleged technology and the claims made and from reading what is said here it’s difficult to draw a conclusion one way or another. However when two different websites offering different products for the same technology have verbatim explanations of how it works one must ask who is copying whom and why they are unable to write their own explanation of an allegedly simple process.
5 January 2012, 2:12 pmThere is an onus on those making the claims to substantiate them experimentally however it is interesting that Jon has not accepted the challenge to go halves in one of these devices to test for himself. If you take an extremely vigorous stance against something and are presented with a challenge and the opportunity to prove it wrong one must wonder why such a challenge would not be eagerly accepted. I would argue that Jon is under just as much obligation to justify his claim in the real world of trial as are the sellers of these systems, and claiming not to need to do so because the facts speak for themselves is a bit of a cop out IMHO.
At the moment all we have is rhetoric on both sides but no definitive evidence in relation to a particular system. There may be more information out there that I haven’t read but the subject has now become too tedious to pursue any further but it must be said that in my case Jon has achieved his aim of casting sufficient doubt.
Unlike other comments above I have avoided being rude or offensive in what I write because whatever one’s opinion, a lack of constraint simply detracts from the credibility the commentator. Hopefully my spelling and grammar are reasonably correct too.
Jon:
Hi Brian,
I have said many many many times why I won’t test this “technology” myself. Science does not work like that and the fact you don’t know this is why you ask the question and why you are a good mark from their point of view, ripe to be scammed. In science it is very hard to prove a negative, all I could ever do is fail to produce a positive. However, if what they say is true then it should be very easy for them to prove a positive, so why don’t they do it?
On the road testing is a stupid idea it the first place, there are way too may uncontrolled variables. To test it myself I would need a car, a science lab capable of testing a car, and an HHO machine. I don’t have any of these things nor the money to pay for them. And besides, it is not my job to test it, it is their job. They are the ones making claims, I’m not claiming anything thing. They are the ones selling things, they are the ones who say they have broken the laws of physics.
What if I did test it and found it not to work? (which I would). Do you really think that they, con men and scam artists, are going to say “OK, you were right all the time, it does not work”? No, of course they aren’t! They are going to say that I did it wrong, or that I need more HHO, or that I used the wrong HHO machine (the one i tested does not work, but theirs does!).
No. They need to show that what they are saying is true. And they can’t and they don’t. Why do you think that is?
And if you want a good laugh, Google bits of the “testimonials”, you will often find that different people in different places said exactly the same thing about different products sold by different companies.
Jon.
5 January 2012, 6:43 pmIan:
Hi,
16 January 2012, 5:49 amJon,
I have enjoyed reading the dialogue so far and I think it’s a shame that people who would probably get along fine face to face can get emotional in perceived conflict that results quite often from a lack of communication.
I gather you are basing your argument on the first law of thermodynamics.
I don’t believe you would have to break first law of thermodynamics (an expression of the principle of conservation of energy) to improve the fuel economy of a “modern” motor vehicle.
The law states that energy/matter can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.
This is a basic tenet of our physical universe and brings up an interesting point. If you believe this first law of thermodynamics and I guess you do or you wouldn’t be arguing it (and so do I) then logic dictates that everything (including the whole universe) that you see around you is constructed of matter/energy by a source/creator/s external to this universe, as matter/energy cannot be created in this universe. We know nothing of this therefore we don’t know everything.
The fact that we need catalytic converters speaks volumes about the wasted fuel /energy that comes out of the exhaust.
Perhaps a simple inexpensive test of the product to ascertain whether more expensive testing was warranted would be to remove the catalytic converter from a vehicle and measure the emissions.
A Waterboost could then be added (still with no catalytic converter). If the emissions are significantly reduced then you could reasonably assume that the fuel that was previously measured in the catalytic converterless test had been burnt.
The vehicle could be run round the same course a few laps for each test and exhaust measured.
If the emissions were reduced significantly and I believe they would be due to the nature of hydrogen combustion, at the very least this would be of benefit environmentally and the best interpretation would be that the missing fuel, (hydrocarbons), was burnt in the combustion chamber.
(I live in Queensland, Australia where there are many vehicles with worn out catalytic converters as there is no requirement for periodic compulsory testing).
If the emissions were not reduced significantly then I wouldn’t bother with more testing.
I hope you post this, as it is written in the hope that there is some merit in this product and it can be proven without too much expense or conflict.
Regards,
Ian Renner
Oliver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1m0B9j1Xw
19 January 2012, 1:05 pmJon:
Wow, Oliver. I am so impressed… You drove a car up a hill and got one reading. Then you drove it down a hill while messing with the car’s computer (thus tricking the Scanguage) and got another reading. To the untrained eye this looks like you improved the MPG, to anyone who knows what they are talking about all you did is send crappy data to the Scanguage and made it give false readings.
19 January 2012, 5:18 pm