Comments on: waterboost.co.uk sue me please! http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661 Jon Starbuck's blog exposing pseudo-green nonsense, promoting science and critical thinking. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:56:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jon http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-28724 Jon Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:18:30 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-28724 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. 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.

]]> By: Oliver http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-28706 Oliver Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:05:09 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-28706 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1m0B9j1Xw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1m0B9j1Xw

]]> By: Ian http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-28451 Ian Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:49:25 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-28451 Hi, Jon, 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 Hi,
Jon,
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

]]> By: Jon http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27713 Jon Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:43:17 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27713 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. 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.

]]> By: brian http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27695 brian Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:12:06 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27695 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. There 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. 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.
There 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.

]]> By: Jon http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27402 Jon Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:13:10 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27402 ??? ???

]]> By: Ken http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27395 Ken Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:52:01 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27395 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!!! 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!!!

]]> By: Jon http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27125 Jon Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:34:25 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27125 Hi Mike, So 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. Hi Mike,
So 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.

]]> By: Mike http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-27122 Mike Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:15:54 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-27122 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. 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.

]]> By: Kenneth R Moore http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/661#comment-25526 Kenneth R Moore Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:33:37 +0000 http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/661#comment-25526 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!. 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!.

]]>