Hydrotechnix – HHO scams in the UK & Spain
At www.hydrotechnix.com they promise to teach you the secret of saving up to 50% on your car’s fuel bill for 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 nonsense.
They also manufacture some technical-looking hydrogen generators which cost a lot of money, unfortunately they won’t save you any fuel either because HHO fuel savers are a scam.
Hydrotechnix is Richard Bird of 40 Trelleck Road, Reading, Berkshire in the UK (although he claims that this is the address of an elderly lady, his mother, and not him – why his registered business address is his mother’s house is not explained).
Richard Bird also is something to do with http://www.partzone.co.uk/
Richard likes to boast that he has a lot of proof that HHO works and that I have none that it does not work.
Of course it is a logical fallacy to demand that I prove that it does not work since science cannot prove a negative, and besides the burden of proof is on him since he, and not me, is the one claiming something.
So far Richard has presented me with no prof that HHO works, he has shown me some scientific papers but when you look closely at them and talk to the people that wrote them you find that they don’t say what Richard thinks they do. He has either not read them properly or has just cherry picked the bits he liked (or both).
The fact is that all of the proof that he has shown me is nothing of the sort. Please read the comments below for more information on this.
Richard Bird is either mistaken or a con man or both, either way Hydrotechnix cannot and will not save you any fuel, they cannot and do not do what Hydrotechnix and Richard Bird say they do.
Steve:
Hi Jon, Glad I stumbled accross your post. I am booked to go and do some training with richard next month. I have been fitting other fuel cells, with good results and went up to look at richards cells……..to be honest they do look good and he’s hgiving an unlimted mileage 2 year warranty with them. Could you tell me what you have based your statement on because I am now considering cancelling the training I’ve got booked this month! Would really appreciate a reply before I am parted from more of my hard earned cash!
31 January 2010, 10:10 amJon:
Hi Steve,
1 February 2010, 11:19 amIt is not Richard’s cells and course I have a problem specifically, it is the entire “industry / technology”; it is all nonsense. No matter how good or bad Richard’s cells and course are it makes no difference to the fact that is is all scientifically preposterous and a scam.
Please read my generic blog on the subject and then let me know if you still think you are having good results with your cells… because I assure you you are mistaken, it does not work, it cannot.
Steve:
HI Jon, Sorry I have taken a while to come back to you. After a few conversations with other people who have been on the hydrotechnix course I have decided not to go along on it!
5 February 2010, 5:29 pmBut with regards to results with other cells I can assure you that I have been getting good results in the majority of cases, 2 sepcifica cases i can quote: 2004 landrover discovery TD5 that is used for towing at all times was originally getting 390 miles to a full tank and is now getting 525 miles! 2003 VW transporter 2.5 swb, used as a leisure vehicle was getting 29 mpg and is now getting 34 mpg.
These figures have been measured over at least 1000 miles. Now if have had a few disappointments with no gain whatsoever but these have been vehicles that are fitted with a diesel particulate filter so the engine ecu is working against the change in exhaust gases. I have been professionally involved in engine remapping for several years and I am currently working on a fix for the vehicles with a DPF I’ll keep you posted if we manage to crack it!
Jon:
Steve,
5 February 2010, 9:11 pmSorry mate but you are mistaken, it does not work, there is another explanation for your “successes”, there is simply no way by which HHO could work. My Peugeot 106′s economy varies from 8mpl to 12mpl and I don’t change anything; it is entirely dependent on the road, the conditions and the driver. You will need to put your successes on a rolling road and remove the human from the experiment, unless you do this your results are utterly meaningless.
Are you aware of the $1,000,000 up for grabs by anyone who can show their HHO works? Why don’t you claim it?
You talk of “engine remapping “; what have you changed on the vehicles you claim a success on? Any use of an EFIE in conjunction with HHO also makes your experiment meanness as you are changing two parameters at once. EFIE’s work in that they do save fuel, however this is at the expense of torque and they make your vehicle’s emissions unreasonably high and illegal.
Dave:
Hi Jon,
9 February 2010, 10:11 pmRichard Bird only properly learnt about this technology a couple of years ago! I know a multitude of people who have been on his rip off training and got fobbed off with cheap certificates an everything else that goes with the training! This dry cell technology as been around for years and also dry cells are no good on European cars there output of hydrogen is far to high there made to for the American market and if it was true of what it did this would have been made into a multi-million pound business years ago. His training is a farce and half the stuff on his website is.
If he was so confident about this it would be a franchise making him millions but he knows by the way he is doing it that he can have no come backs once you hand over the money for the training you’ve been had!
I wonder why he doesn’t operate the training in England? Am i right by saying there are no such laws of trading standards in Spain for such a thing because if the training was done in the UK i’m pretty sure Mr Bird would be bankrupt and in a lot of trouble by now!!
Dave:
Hi Jon
10 February 2010, 5:05 pmMay i also had that he is false advertising with this quote: WE CAN CONVERT YOUR VEHICLE TO RUN ON HYDROGEN GAS OBTAINED FROM WATER. Thats what it says on the home page of the website and thats a completly untrue comment its stating that your vehicle runs off hydrogen alone and it does not!!
Ryan Wills - rwills@hotmail.com:
Hi, reading the above has made me chuckle a bit. This Jon guy seems a bit os a dick to be honest. He obviously has been confined to his house or something for a long time. Maybe his wife (if he has one) has got him stayng at home washing dishes and doing the ironing etc etc while she takes a huge black strap-on and rams him up the arse every night whilst watching noddy!. lol lol. Get out a bit, see the world and stop being a dick.
12 April 2010, 3:05 pmI have HHo running on my vehicle and I wouldnt drive without it now and yes it was one of Hydrotechnix’s installations.
I guess if you havent got one on your vehicle and never have the you cant be a in any position to judge weather it works or not.
So Jon stop being a dick and let them do their work. And keep getting that cock rammed up your arse I’m sure your loving it.
Ryan Wills – rwills@hotmail.com
Jon:
Ryan, you a amazing.
12 April 2010, 4:44 pmHow old are you? With your playground-logic and playground-humor I’d say you are way too young to drive. Your comment is homophobic, racist, misogynistic… you are a nasty bully… gosh, if I were 8-years-old and not a grown man I think I may start to cry :’(
I’d recommended you stop bunking double-science because that way, when you grow up, you can go to university and become a real scientist or an engineer.
I’m a busy man, run along and stop wasting my time, go get me some EVIDENCE that your magic-machine does what you say it does.
EB:
Reading Ryan’s post has made me chuckle a bit. That Ryan guy seems a bit of a dick to me. He obviously wouldn’t know real science if it attacked him in a dark alley with a proof gun. This is what always astounds me with these scammers (and let’s face it, Ryan must be one, why else the childish behaviour and lack of scientific proof to his “argument”) – they seem to have bypassed needing proof to make their scientific discoveries.
12 April 2010, 5:19 pmIf there were no scam then we would be in the prescence of a discovery outside the realms of science as we know it. It would be headline news! Long held scientific KNOWLEDGE would be found to be wrong. If there were no scam then “people” like Ryan would not need to resort to such banal, ridiculous behaviour as their proof would speak for itself. I am a mathematician with a strong scientific background and I do not need to try one of Hydrotechnix’s installations to know that it does not work – science tells me that.
mike:
Hi, can anyone shed any light on this company, http://www.hho4u.co.uk
They claim the following,
We have ‘CE’ approval for our products and are currently under evaluation for the legally required ‘E’ marking. This is European Commision legal requirement and is conducted by VCA or VCA approved test centres. As soon as we are approved we are then due to go to Milbrook Test Facility for our LEZ (Low Emmision Zone) accreditation.
We are also at present being evaluated by the newly formed HHO Trade Association, TAMA, with a view to being granted Premier Membership of the association. It seems TAMA are lobbying Government for legislation regarding the HHO industry as too many companies are making claims and promises that they don’t, won’t or can’t back up. Membership approval to TAMA will also allow us to display OFT (Office of Fair Trading) accreditation.
We undertake to do what ever is required by law and more to ensure that our customers are getting a product and service that performs as intended at all times and our upgrades and developments will be put through these same rigorous procedures.
If HHO doesn’t work, then how can they get all the above?
20 April 2010, 12:40 pmJon:
“If HHO doesn’t work, then how can they get all the above?”
20 April 2010, 2:55 pmMike, that is an easy one, because none of what they say is true, it is all lies.
Hho4u are on this blog here – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/700
Christian:
I am glad to have found these interesting comments!
22 April 2010, 12:52 pmI live in The Costa del Sol and this place is full of scammers! I saw this HHO coarse advertised on ebay. The coarse ran from Malaga so I thought it would be a good idea to inquire. After speaking to Richard a few times I decided against doing the coarse as He “was in the process of getting the system homologated here in Spain”. This worried me as without proper Spanish certification the MOT, ITV centres would fail the vehicle if they knew this system was fitted. I know a lot about engines and it does seem a good idea, but without government approval it is not a legal business.
Glad I did not bother!
Also why have the struggling car companies not included this type of system to improve car sales?
Steve:
The site mentioned above hho4u.co.uk is simply two guys who did Richard Bird’s course in Spain and set themselves up over here in the UK
26 April 2010, 4:35 pmJohn Matthews:
Hi Jon Just like to say! That was the sweetest and most diplomatic reply given to that nasty manboy Ryan (willy) Wills, I have heard. I have rwiten this comment in joined up writing so he’cant read it.
13 May 2010, 3:20 amI’v seen a few of these clames from the likes of Hydrotechnix and allways thought that it was all bull shit now I know it’s true THANKS to you.
But what of Michael Strizki He do’s not clame to run his car on HHO but on hydrogen which he manufactures and colects? or the DLR Glider Antares,or the Fule Cell Boiler on offer from Callor Gas and others are these Bull Shit Too??
P.S F**K OFF Ryan and U Ritchard Bird U can go and PLUCK ur self
Sorry about that Jon but sometimes I get so
Fus $”!**(&)?% ATED
Mr Beef:
thanks for this information guys, I have been sent business plans and market information but I’m no mechanic I have yet parted with my cash so happy about that. I thought this would really work, but looks like this is a scam. Ashame really, I thought this all sounded to good to be true :O(
18 May 2010, 2:25 pmSimon:
Wow! I have just read all the heated comments on here. I probably have more experience of Richard Bird than any one. The man is a criminal. He broke into our business premises and stole from us. I believe that the Police are in the process of issuing a warrant for his arrest should he ever enter the country again. We paid £990 to him for the privilege of attending his training course, for a unit that didnt work and the rights to use all his written material. His units basically are crap and dont work. We have since spent nearly £100,000 adapting the unit and making it work. It is early days but our [advertising removed by Admin] unit has been fitted to a Ford Transit which is showing fuel economy savings of at least 30% over a sustained one month period. We are now seeking independent verification of this and will update anyone interested in due course. Richard Bird should be avoided at all costs!
18 May 2010, 3:44 pmSimon:
I think you guys need a bit of educating. Hydrogen does work and is the future. Mercedes have spent a fortune on research and are about to launch their first hydrogen hybrid car, the S Series. BMW similarly are lanuching the new 7 Series as a hydrogen hybrid car. Suzuki have designed a hydrogen hybrid motorbike, The technology does work. Designed and building a unit to work on existing vehicles has proved difficult because of the problem of dealing with the complexities and intelligence of many vehicle’s engine management systems. There is no doubt however that HHO does work and has done so in the States for years. Dont get me wrond Richard Bird’s doesnt work. All I am saying is dont tar everyone with the same brush. HHO4U have nothing to do with us but are to the best of my knowledge nothing to do with Richard Bird and should therefore be exempt from your attacks
20 May 2010, 12:48 amJon:
Simon,
20 May 2010, 1:14 amHHO is a scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hydrogen engines which are a completely different technology.
HHO has been show many times to be nonsense, it has never been shown, in the US or anywhere, to work.
Jon.
Simon:
To run a successful blog you have to let it flow in which ever direction the bloggers take it. You cannot just get aggressive because someone has an alternative view to you.
20 May 2010, 6:03 amOur units do work, I personally have spent over £100,000 in the R and R of our units. We have a transit van which is showing fuel savings of between 28% and 32% and is currently undergoing the most rigorous of independent testing to prove that is the case.
The new Hydrogen engines run on exactly the same principle as our units, but then of course you know nothing about our units. Despite this you are happy to generalise and tar everyone with the Bird Brush!
You do tend to come across as very bigoted which is a pity because I am sure that underneath you are a reasonable intelligent person.
Jon:
Hi again Simon.
Your point about bloggig is received and understood. However I will not allow my blog to be spammed and hijacked by people talking rubbish and trying to draw me away from the point (that there is no evidence that this technology works because it cannot work).
You want us to critically examine your HHO machine? Then let us know where we can view information on it and I’ll start a new thread.
You can claim all you like that you have a working system, but until you provide people with actual evidence your word remains worthless. I have seen this a thousand times before, people claim that they evidence but they never show it.
I thought you may enjoy this article which came out today, sounds a LOT like your situation, only a year or two down the line.
20 May 2010, 7:36 pmhttp://www.eco-scams.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/oil-drum.pdf
Regards,
Jon.
fraser:
hi all, i am neither a learned guy, a scientist, an engineer or anything of that nature. pleased also to report that i am not a bigot, homophobe, racist or anything of THAT nature.
2 June 2010, 12:05 pmI am however old enough and long enough in the tooth to call a spade a spade and have enough ‘smarts’ to know when to open my trap and when not to. with regard to the nastiness shown in this thread – i consider it to be a defensive reaction caused by the passionate belief in your side of the argument. i think everyone agrees that comments about strap ons and the like were a little ott – but then putting a blanket ‘ it does not and cannot work’ may not be as nasty but is just as narrow minded.
my own experience of hho stuff is that i have a mate who fitted it to his vw van and thus far results seem to be encouraging, i do take on board that an experiment should be done on a rolling road without a human involved.
i leave all the boffins and supposed scientists to answer me this though – despite all the laws of physics – a bee flies. all the brainiacs agree ‘ it shouldnt happen, it CANT WORK ‘ and yet i see loads of them every day buzzing about doing their thing.
I would extend this attitude to those who are totally convinced that hho wont work, keep an open mind and use that supposedly big brain to HELP MAKE it work, dont be a prisoner of your academic prowess…
Jon:
Hi Fraser,
2 June 2010, 5:32 pmThe thing is, bumblebees can fly, anyone can see that. Just like HHO, it is an urban myth that science can’t explain how bumblebees can fly. How they achieve flight is actually well understood. Find me one scientist that says that it is impossible. Here is a great article on this subject – http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly
Wayne:
Has anyone chased up the testimonials on his website?
6 June 2010, 11:18 pmI’m supposed to be going in a week & would like to know if anyone has contacted the testimonials.
Jon:
Good luck with contacting those testimonials. They look to me to be way to vague to be contactable.
7 June 2010, 4:48 amAnyway, testimonials are meaningless, you should be looking for scientific data and you can be sure none of the HHO people have any of that.
Have a read of this – http://www.fuelsaving.info/testimonial.htm – Tony emplanes why testimonials are worthless very nicely.
Polyfemus:
Oh please save us from the non scientific inventor. This is just another scam in the same vein as the perpetual motion machines. Get it straight ‘HYDROGEN’ is a perfectly good power source when it has already been removed from water. Unfortunately it is still not costor energy effective when compared to petrol. The reason being that it is expensive to do the separation. It is only the ‘GREEN’ appeal that drives this source, and the rising cost of petrol. If it came into common use it would be taxed as petrol and the driving (no pun intended) would be lost. Now personally if some idiot wants lose £1500 that’s his business, it’s the criminal gainng from it that annoys me.
20 June 2010, 10:20 pmRichard Bird:
Hi Jon
24 July 2010, 6:23 pmI thought it was about time I answered some of the accusations you have levelled at me and my company. The course I run is £995 not (or ever has been) £1500. The address you give for me is my 93 year old mothers address in Reading. I live in Spain as you know, so please remove this listing. If you wish I can supply you with the correct address. Two people (one I know and one I do not) have stated that they have tried our units and they work in this blog. Your response is always ‘you are mistaken’. There are now 2.8 million people in the US alone running on HHO, and one failed ex Bio diesel author saying it cannot work. I wonder who is right? Who is mistaken? We have the most advanced units in the world and if they did not work then we would be in court every week with Trading Standards (who have never heard of us!). We are registered in the UK, have patents and registered designs in the UK and are subject to UK law. We offer a 30 day money back guarantee (which no one has ever asked for), 2 year warranty and we are the only company that have been approved Product and Public liability by Lloyds of London. I tried to take up the offer of $1000000 to prove this technology works. The offer has been withdrawn, which is a shame, the money would have been good for R & D. The company has been running for 5 years and prior to that we did LPG conversions (properly qualified). In that industry too there was the same ‘naysayers’ about that till it was approved by the government. Finally I’d like to set the record straight about Simon and has accusations. This person used to run the assembly and manufacturing of our units. Unfortunately they got greedy and wanted to take over the whole business. We had no choice but to remove all the stock and tools we had bought for them. Sour grapes indeed, £100000 on R&D (at which pub?) I have not committed any crime and come back to the UK every month for at least a week. My personal mobile number is 07771475653 which is live while I’m in the UK. I will be coming over on 29th July 2010 for 9 days should anyone want to talk to me (or arrest me, ha-ha!)
We are passionate about improving the environment, helping people save money and if we can make a living doing this that’s good too. I bear you, Simon or any other bloggers any malice and applauded free speech as long as it stays polite and you keep personal details off your site. The general public will take more notice if you do this also. You probably may not publish this but I personally feel better to get it off my chest. We hope you find work soon for the future.
Jon:
Richard, what are you talking about? This is pathetic. How old are you? You are resorting to petty nonsense name calling, suggesting that I am an unemployed failed author. So lame. Aren’t you supposed to be a entrepreneurial business man? Because you don’t act like one.
Interesting that you, just like every seller of snake oil, neatly avoid sidestep the one single most important point; that you have no evidence whatsoever that your product works, because it does not work, because it can’t work, because it is a scam. How about you respond to that?
And these happy customers of yours? Who are they?
25 July 2010, 12:11 amRyan Wills:
Ok, I maybe went a bit far on the language front but I think Jon needs to stop with it too, everything to him is bullshit !
9 August 2010, 4:41 pmYess I can drive and just to add been a professional driver for over 8 years now.
It’s now been a while since the last post and in the mean time
I have vehicles now running with more of the bullshit hydrotechnix systems and it’s my business. I have 3 in total on my vehicles and there working fine, infact I have been very impressed by the latest additions as they are constantly giving an extra 10mpg.
But you wont want to know that because it’s in my head and it isn’t real.
But I will keep using my vehicles and systems and keep saving on my fuel whilst they drive better and produce very very little emissions as they have been tested on several occasions and have been lowered by 76%. I have print outs and the Testing station were amazed at the results.
If I was to promote the system I use then I will say one thing. This system if used on every vehicle would save the environment on emissions alone even if they didnt return your mpg.
Jon:
Ryan,
9 August 2010, 5:19 pmNot everything to me is bullshit, just claims made with no rational explanation, no evidence, no plausible theory… it is called critical thinking, i suggest you try it. Do fairies exist? Does homeopathy work? Do cell phones cause brain cancer? Is climate change real? Does MMR cause autism? Does HHO work?
It is odd that you have the exact same IP address as Richard Bird’s only other happy customer, can you explain that? Because I can.
And while you are at it, please let the rest of the world view these test results you claim to have so we can decide weather or not the conclusions you draw are valid?
Ryan:
I am a happy customer and so is my work collegue who found this site.
13 August 2010, 10:19 amKeep up the good work, Ive got more important things to do!
Brian:
HHO Does work more MPG 25-120% increases and lowers emissions i have plenty of MOT goverment emission test resualts to prove it. The next generation cell is on its way very soon but i will not be releasing it until it is tested to the max!
Please dont use stainless steel cells as they produce hexavalent Chromium it is a real danger to you as a person and the enviroment if the hho cell does not run clear all of the time get rid of it but please dont pore the dirty water down the sink my new generation cells comply with the statury instrument of 2008 in regard to EEE please find the document on the enviroment agency website!
I have many test vehicles with great improvments in MPG they range from 25% to 120% improvement some need a hydrogen control processers some dont, there is a problem with 2006 and newer diesel vehicles it looks like its the DPF screwing things up but plese donot be tempted to swith it off with out removing the DPF completly if you donot remove it you will damage your engine in the tune of around £6000! the filter needs to regenerate and if you turn it off it cannot regenerate and it will block which in turn creates all the damage!! normal regeneration happens between 300 and 500 mile intervels
15 August 2010, 11:40 pmBrian:
Just to add Jon is not unemployed he works for very well known oil companies that are trying to suppress HHO! Sorry mate but it here and its getting better. Please tell your boss that they will be losing lots of revenue very soon! LOL
15 August 2010, 11:49 pmjim:
I have been following this since seeing Richards ebay ad for a business oppotunity which led me here. Im not forking out for a training course I cant afford and have a crap credit rating so no business plan would rub with the bank. I do however have a passion for alternative power and fuel systems and have done my reaserch into HHO. The gas produced from electrolysis is commonly known as Browns gas,oxyhydrogen but still burns givin the same energy.The important factor is it burns violently so in a combustion chamber mixed with petrol/diesel its a lot of energy being released its going to be more efficient and give more power with less fuel consumption. Its physics its proven its been used in manufacturing for 100s of years so please Jon it sounds like you only have a problem with the idea of people making money from it. I cant see why Richard is charging what he charges and misleading with some quotes but dont say it doesnt work thats just rediculous, there are argumants if the efficiency gained can compensate for alternator load powering the cell but with lower emmisions overall its the way to go for now.
18 August 2010, 7:50 pmJon:
No, my problem is not only with people making money from it, it is the ABSOLUTE and COMPLETE lack of evidence that it works. This is because it is a scam, it does not work.
23 August 2010, 8:52 amJon:
What? Really? Is this an example of Godwin’s Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law I don’t work for any oil companies, in fact quite the opposite. Get a grip…
23 August 2010, 8:55 amJon:
I’m finding it very hard to follow what you are saying, you seem to have had a punctuation bypass. What is your point?
23 August 2010, 8:57 amPhill:
why dont these so called experts proof that hho doesnt work why is it then nasa tested hho and it worked, and i suppose sombody on ere is gonna say that nasa scientists are con artists to.
9 September 2010, 12:47 pmJon:
Phill, that is such nonsense, NASA have never tested HHO (or at least I can find no reference to them having done any such test). However, in 1977 (more than 30 years ago) NASA did do some experiments involving adding hydrogen to 1969 gasoline engine (technology which would now be 40 years old). Why don’t you read the full report and point out the bit where NASA say that HHO will save you any fuel? Because I have read it several times and I can’t find it.
9 September 2010, 6:56 pmjulian:
Jon,
12 September 2010, 1:29 pmI read with interest your comments on the HHO industry, and claims made by various companies about how we can save fuel. As consumers we need people like you to arm us with information so that we can make an informed choice. I am curious as to your personal position is on all of this, have you tested such systems, or just searched the internet? I know that there are systems out there that simply do not work as my brother-in-law has such a system in his truck with no results what so ever, but that is no basis to rubbish the whole concept is it? What would be good for us consumers would be if someone like you could sit on the fence, take up Richard Birds offer of a 30day money back guarantee and show us undisputed evidence that HHO simply does not work and all this is just a scam.
Mike:
Will it or wont it work?
Well, if Richard is prepared to offer a 30 day refund, I say give it a go.
The science of passing a current through water to produce a ‘hydrogen’ gas is well proven, as is the science of squirting a flammable gas into the mix to improve combustion (as so many boy racers want to add ‘nitrous’ to bump up their speed) – so what is so wrong with the system being discussed here?
Even if the system only produces a little violently combustible gas, surely this will have the desired effect?
In fact, why not settle this properly? Why don’t Richard & jon meet up and both parties give a sum of money to a trusted third party.
Jon fills his tank to the brim & they drive off for a couple of hours ’til the fuel light comes on to get an idea of the fuel economy.
Richard then fits his gadget to Jon’s car, they fill the tank again (as before) and drive off again – for the same distance as before.
If the device works as stated, the fuel guage should show that there is still fuel in the tank in advance of the yellow light coming on.
If the device works, the third party hands over the money to Richard, if not, Jon gets the money.
To make things even more interesting, both parties should hand over all documents relating to their vehicles to the third party.
If Richard’s device really works – proving Jon wrong, Jon gives up his car and prints a huge retraction
20 September 2010, 10:32 pmIf Jon is correct and this is snakeoil, Richard is walking home and Jon will have a field day on here.
Jon:
Mike, thanks for your comment.
Nitrous is Nitrous Oxide, N2O. It is not a flammable gas at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide The way it works is well understood, has a logical scientific theory to back it up, and has real and repeatable science to confirm it is true. It has nothing in common with HHO.
If HHO worked by the method you propose then it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This is preposterous.
Your proposed experiment would prove nothing; it has no control, it would not have any degree of accuracy and it is not blind. Besides, I don’t need to be involved, I am not claiming anything, Richard is. I don’t need to prove it does not work (it is in fact a logical fallacy to try to prove a negative), Richard is claiming he has a product which does something and yet he has no proof that he is telling the truth. HHO has been shown, in the lab, many times, to not produce any measurable positive effect. When they tested Oil Drum’s HHO machine in a lab at the end of 2009 it was found to be more effective, by 4%, when it was switched off.
20 September 2010, 11:00 pmMike:
I don’t understand when you say “if hho worked by the method I propose…”
In richard’s advert, he claims that “HHO gas is produced from water and electrolyte by passing electricity through the water. The HHO gas is then sucked into the engine and mixed with the existing fossil fuel”
How can you say you are not claiming anything, Richard is when your opening post claims this wghole process is a scam.
yorkshire green fuels http://www.yorkshiregreenfuels.co.uk/hydrogen_kit.asp
21 September 2010, 12:27 amare selling a similar (?) system and making claims, is this also a scam?
Jon:
You imply that HHO works by burning the hydrogen in the engine as an additional fuel, this would violate conservation of energy laws. To get around this people who make HHO kits say “oh no, that is not how it works, you have it all wrong, it works by…”. Each now theory on how it works is quickly show to be pseudoscience, whereby the maker of the HHO kit moves on to the next theory by which it works. This gets very very boring very quickly. And it misses to point too, the question is not how it works but does it work, and the answer is that there is no evidence to say that it does, no reasonable theory by which it could, and lots of science to suggest it does not.
Anyone who sells something which they know does not work is a con man. Richard has failed to show that he has any reasonable reason to beleive his HHO machine saves any fuel whatsoever. I say that it is a scam, and I lay my evidence before you in this blog. Richard says his machine works and shows you nothing.
Yorkshire Green Fuels I know very little about. I can say that the biodiesel processor they sell has several very dangerous design flaws, it looks like it was made to be cheap rather than safe. I can also assure you that they are talking nonsense about their HHO unit. Is it a scam? Well it kinda depends on their intention. If they know it does not work then it is a scam, if they beleive it does work then they are just very foolish. Either way, it will not work and they cannot show that it does work.
21 September 2010, 1:03 amBrian:
Greenkatt Hydrogen Systems Coming soon! will post website soon under construction!
26 September 2010, 9:57 pmBrian:
Hi all BMW, Ford, Have produced hydrogen powered vehicles 7 BMW,s are to be deliverd to the UK. They have done this to show that hydrogen does not WORK! Oh and they have zero emmissions I think they are called snakeoil A7
26 September 2010, 10:15 pmBrian:
Hi all
26 September 2010, 10:20 pmI cant seem to post BMW link on here so just google BMW 7 hydrogen!!!
Anonymous:
I see you still have not removed the 93 year old womans address from the top of this thread.
9 November 2010, 5:25 pmI think it should be reported that you use this address in this thread when she has nothing to do with any of the above.
Jon:
Hey Richard (Mr. Anonymous),
9 November 2010, 5:53 pmIf you don’t like your 93 y/o mum’s address being published on this blog then you should not run a scam from her house and allow the address to be publicly available.
Carnot:
Boy, oh boy what a lively discussion. Guys I hate to disappoint you all but all these hydrogen generators are a scam, either intended or unintended. The first thing to consider is how much hydrogen will these things produce. Judging by the amount of water that they supposedly consume then it cannot be much. 1 litre of water would produce about 1245 litres of hydrogen gas at normal temperature and would weigh about 110 grams.to combust this fuel fully would require about 3987 gms of air, a fuel to air ratio of 1:36. The heating value (higher) of hydrogen is 142 MJ/Kg against gasoline value of 43 MJ/Kg. Our 110 gms of hydrogen then has the energy equivalent of about 0.33 of 1kg of gasoline or 1.33 litre. How far will the average car travel on 1.3 litres of gasoline – about 10 miles. I litre of water would be able to power the car for about 3.3 miles. If those who have installed these scams are not using much water then you are not generating much hydrogen.
As cars are heat engines then they work by extracting heat out of a hot gas by work, which in itself cools the gas. The thermodynamics of this process are very well known and are immutable. The thermal efficiency is governed by the compression ratio, which is why diesel engines are more efficient. The thought that adding a few litres of hydrogen gas per minute to an engine and thereby gain a fuel saving of 25%+ go beyond exaggeration to the realms of science fantasy. Think about this. A 2 Litre displacement engine running at 3000 rpm will ingest about 1500 litres of fresh air per minute(50% exhaust recycle)which weighs about 1.8 kgs. Normal gasoline has a stoichiometric fuel to air ratio if 1:14.7 so the engine will require about 0.12 kg of fuel per minute, which is about 6 miles per litre. A fuel saving of 25% would require that this heat enegy be replaced by hydrogen. Base case 5.2 MJ per mile heat energy with the above example. 1.3 MJ from hydrogen and 3.9 MJ from gasoline. Hydrogen required = 9 grams; gasoline = 120 grams; to generate the hydrogen you would need 82 mls of water.
Hydrogen production by electyrolysis also needs some discussion. You cannot get out more than you put in. Moreover to get the best efficiency requires Platinum electrodes and an electroyte, and even then the best efficiency is less than 80%. So to generate the hydrogen you would have to put in a minimum of 25% more energy than you got out and you would produce the electricity by burning fuels in a gasoline engine which is 33% efficient at best. This is also known as Perpetual Motion and that did not work either. Forget the US claims with this crap. They invented the scam.
Who am I . I am a petroleum chemist with extensive knowledge in fuels, and I hate seeing people scammed with these devices or with crackpot claims about producing your own fuels in lethal biodiesel units. I dislike biodiesel because it is truly a bad product with many shortcomings, however it is made. Renewable diesel is a different matter which for the uninformed is hydrotreated oils, not esterified oils.
If you want to save fuel buy a smaller car and drive economically. Well done Jon, I admire your work and wish you well.
10 November 2010, 3:21 pmPiggy Malone:
Can the technical boys explain to me why the petrochemical manufacturers add additives to fuel, presumably to enhance the performance. Does HHO not act as a beneficial additive when combusted in a internal combustion engine.
11 November 2010, 4:06 pmCarnot, can you explain your comment that you “hate seeing people scammed with crackpot claims about producing your own fuel in lethal biodiesel units”. I do not understand your claim that these units are lethal.
Jon:
Piggy Malone,
There are many fuel additives for many reasons, here is a list of some of their uses; performance improver, emissions reduction, octane enhancing, anti knocking, oxygenators, corrosion inhibitors, detergents, dyes…
“Does HHO not act as a beneficial additive when combusted in a internal combustion engine?” I have never seen any evidence that it does, and on every occasion that I am aware of it being submitted to scientific testing it has failed to improve anything.
Making biodiesel is dangerous, it mixes heat and poison and oil, you need to be very careful and good design of equipment is essential. There are as many designs of biodiesel reactor as there people making biodiesel, and vasyt majority of these designs are amazingly dangerous. Principally, avoid any design which uses plastic anything or has any open vessels. Joshua Tickell’s book “From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank” is still the best selling biodiesel book and yet it is rammed full of misinformation, inaccuracies and very dangerous designs for biodiesel reactors. There is a lot of good information on safe designs on the web (look for “appleseed reactors”)… or you could just by my book – http://runyourdieselvehicleonbiofuels.com/
11 November 2010, 7:13 pmrico:
Ohhh Jon, shame on you.
You are probably paid by oil companies to post this blog (or maybe not, which makes even worse) …i dont even wanna start this conversation cause “you are the master of this blog and seems like only you hold the truth” so im not gonna waste my time.
You probably gonna ask me the same questions you have asked other people, “how old are you?” or maybe call me pathetic when I can only see ONE pathetic person here: YOU!!!!
and what is that about the bio-diesel? Obviously is dangerous!!! silly man!!! is a fuel!!! making petrol and normal diesel is dangerous too, drilling holes down the planet earth is dangerous too!!!! …and the big oil companies never stop doing it, have them?
Get real mate! You are just against all alternatives for a better world.
Keep running your car on petrol or diesel, destroy the place you live, but at least let other people do what they want to do.
Who do you think you are to talk to people like that? I’m sure you are not a scientist nor a fuel engineer. You are just a fool controlled by the media!!!
All the best Jon, hope you open your eyes one day.
16 November 2010, 10:08 pmJon:
Rico,
Had you actually read anything about me or any of my posts on this blog you would see how silly everything you say is. Instead you seem to have been reading “how to draw on as many logical fallacies as possible“. Anyway, here we go:
rico:
oh yes, and if you know about everything why not give solutions instead????
17 November 2010, 12:20 amJon:
Rico
I do solutions pretty much all day every day, it is what most of my time is spent doing. You will notice this site is called Eco Scams, if you want to read something positive about eco-non-scams I’d suggest Eco Geek (you will note how magic run-your-car-on-water is not a big feature there – this is because HHO is silly).
17 November 2010, 12:23 amCarnot:
Piggy Malone.
I will reply as follows. Just what is HHO or Browns Gas? If water is electolysed it produces oxygen and hydrogen as molecules of O2 and H2. In a non vented, non separated electorde generator, this would be an explosive mixture as it would be a stoichiometric mixure. Therefore this could literally explode if hydrogen and oxygen were present in these concentrations. In commercial plants the anode produces oxygen (oxidised) and the the cathode produces hydrogen (reduction). The combustion process is a reverse of this. As I explained the generation of even a few litres of a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen per minute will have little effect on the performance of an engine, as a typical 2 litre enegine would be ingesting about 1.8 kg of air per minute at 3000 rpm.Fuel is mixed with air on a mass basis. In my example that would need 51 g of hydrogen per minute on a mass basis. for 25% fule saving then you would need a quarter of that figure.As a stated if you are not using much water you are not producing much hydrogen. I stand by what I said. These units are SCAMS. If they were any good car manufacturers would be using them. Why don’t they? Overnight they could get a 25% reduction in fuel consumption if they worked. Guess what -they don’t.
Fuel additives are added to gasoline for an effect. These include detergents for injector and valve cleaning,antioxidants for gum prevention and storage stability, metal deactivators for stability, combustion chamber deposit additives and octane enhancers. The latter includes ethers and alcohols such as MTBE and ethanol.
Hydrogen could , and has (Honda, BMW) been used in an IC enegine,. But is has drawbacks. Firstly there is the flame speed which is very high compared with gasoline which requires changes to the ignition. Secondly it is fiedishly difficult to produce and store. Most hydrogen produced commercially comes from natural gas, by steam reforming which is an energy intensive process that produces much CO2. It is however cheaper than hydrogen by electrolysis. Storing hydrogen poses a challenge. You either liquify it which is not easy, and then this liquid constantly boils off, or you compress it which is also not easy. The pressure vessels are very heavy and require special alloys as hydrogen will migrate into the metal crystal boundaries and cause blistering. A nice idea but not very practical.
My concerns on biodieselplants have been adequately answered by Jon. I have seen some lethal biodiesel plants. Handling caustic soda and methanol should not be taken lightly. It will burn you very easily. Methanol is a cumulative toxin that can be adsorped through the skin. 50 ml will kill you or at the least make you blind.
I would never put biodiesel in my engine. Most engine seals will not tolerate high concentrations of biodiesel for vey long. The ester swells all types of rubber, including Viton. For this reasons OEM’s do not want to exceed 5% biodiesel in mineral diesel. Biodiesel is also highly susceptible to biological attack and has very poor thermal stability. Injector coking is a real possibility.
17 November 2010, 9:28 amCarnot:
Mike,
Take one look at Yorkshire biofuels and if you do not see a Scam then I fear you are beyond redemption.
The biodiesel plant is lethal, and I am not the only one who has spotted this.
The hydrogen generator takes some believing. They offer 3. The first is the usual Brown’s gas scam. The second electolyses sodium bicarbonate to hydrogen. You will need a load of bicarbonate for this method and if it works watch it foam over and puke into your inlet manifold. You might get a secondary reaction of the aluminium inlet parts reacting with the sodium carbonate formed.
The third is pure fantasy. Drop used aluminium cans into caustic soda. I thought that this was a joke. But they are serious, and their advice is “Be-sensible” with how much aluminium that you add to the caustic soda. This will really foam and puke over into your inlet manifold. It will probabaly stop your engine in short order — permanently.
Talk about the blind leading the blind. Good luck.
17 November 2010, 9:52 amjames:
hi, im a bit of a sceptic and disagree with most things that cannot be proven but im all for saving money, especially with the fuel costs of today.
19 November 2010, 2:07 pmI made my own hho kit for my own car, and fitted it. I travel 35 miles to work everyday 70 mile round trip, and used to cost me 15 pound a day, but with my hho kit i fitted it now costs me 10 pound a day.. now correct me if im wrong but i have saved 5 pound a day.
I am not trying to sell HHo kits and i am not in the buisness either, neither am i trying to say that richard bird not a scanner, but with my car with my hho kit i save money.
The hho kits are so easy to make and fit, so why dont u all make your own and fit it to ur own car and see it with ur own eyes.
Even though there is not proof to show that hho kits work i do believe that hho kits work as it works on my car.
James
james:
sorry about the spelling ect ect, no glasses mixed with the flu! not good lol
19 November 2010, 2:20 pmCarnot:
Great, you can make billions. Take it to a car company and collect your cash. They will twist your arm off to make such a saving. You can be a biillionaire tomorrow.
r
You can get the same effect with a magnet – it alters the chage on the fuel molecule and makes it burn 50% better.
When you get a chance show me your methodology.
19 November 2010, 11:55 pmDavid Lewis:
wow what a thread
very interesting – I am an ecu remapper with one of the leading remapping companies – and have read this thread with great interest. Have I been barking up the wrong tree for the last 3 years?
I am of course very interested in the possability that large saving can be made by using these HHO systems but I am a layman and a sceptic – I like I would imagine most of the readers of this thread would love the HHO system to work. I have come across it a few times during my time remapping vehicles and have yet to see what I would call proof, but if there is 20-30% fuel saving to be had it is certainly worth investigating.
I have use of a 4wd rolling road and Bosch emmision testing equipment – Forget the physics ( I have an a grade 0-level from 1985 and that wont cut the mustard here ) I dont care if theoretically it doesn t work if it does and I would like to kill the thought from my mind if it doesnt work – how can we prove this one way or another for definate? Answers on a postcard or on here anyway
p.s
23 November 2010, 12:51 amThe best fuel savings I have seen from remapping is an oldish 2003 volvo xc90 increase from 30 to 36.5 mpg and sometimes there is negligable improvement it is all about the driver and the driving conditions.
Jon:
Hi David,
23 November 2010, 1:07 amAre you really a skeptic? Well start with the null hypothesis and go from there. Discount any evidence from of anecdote. See if you can find any science, either in the for of a theory of how it could work or in the form of data from tests showing it working (remember, you cant prove a negative). I have never found any of either. Therefore I am left back at the begining, with the null hypothesis.
There is no known way by which this could work, nowhere for this extra energy to come from, no science showing it working… just a massive pile of extraordinarily dubious anecdotal evidence from some very questionable sources – and as any skeptic will tell you, no amount of anecdote will ever be considered evidence, it just points towards areas which may warrant scientific examination, and no scientific examination of HHO has ever found anything.
David Lewis:
understood
but lets say im a glass half full kind of guy
remapping has been rubbished by some in the past
but with my own eyes I have seen some pretty good results
as you say there are reasons we know the reasons for this that are proved
thats why I have invested some £20,000 in equipment so I can offer this service
What about if there IS a reason that 20-30% improvement in fuel conumption ( that has been overlooked )has to be worth looking at if its true or to refute it permanently and lets be honest it wouldn t be before time – this talk has been around for many many years – and I know some south american governments are putting decent amounts of money into this right now.
Acording to this thread and other websites a lot of money has been spent developing these systems ( certainly a lot more than the fuel line magnets and other twaddle available )
I have the roling road and the emmision testing equipment – I would love to put it to the test any takers ?
or I could write to mythbusters ( my sons favorite program – he would be delighted )
23 November 2010, 2:16 amDavid
Jon:
Mythbusters did try it once, but they were trying to run on hydrogen alone and their HHO machine did not make enough hydrogen, they did not try it as a fuel additive so it is not very relevant.
If you have invested money into this then you are not the person to be doing the testing, intentionally or not you are biased. You need to make sure your trial is blind, has some kind of control, is repeatable, fully documented… all the standard science stuff. Whenever these HHO machines have been tested in this manor they are found to not work, and just like any other pseudo-science put under the scientific method, the inventor then trys to rubbish the science.
Watch this video for an example. – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/716
23 November 2010, 2:37 amRob:
There is an independant report in “Car Mercanics” magazine dated May 2009. They have installed and tested the Waterboost system and have proven that they are getting more miles per gallon. I suggest that you take a look and let me know what you make of it.
22 January 2011, 7:08 pmJon:
I’m not aware of the specific test you are talking about, but I have seen them before. The test will be deeply flawed with no blinding, not control, no peer review, no nothing. Here are a couple more you may be interested in:
22 January 2011, 8:41 pmhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/1802932
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4276846
MD:
Hello to all, very interesting thread to which I have read through time and time again. Being an ex Cambridge Grad (Math) very good at working things out, what comes across clearly in all of this IS 1:Jon no matter what anyone says you always seem to go against them and have answers whether they are right or wrong along with your persuasive ways of trying to back up what you are saying via blogs/reports elsewhere.
7 March 2011, 11:16 pm2:Does the systems that we are talking about produce gas/hydrogen? Yes and proven.
3:Does Hydrogen Burn? Yes and proven.
4:So then IF this is the case, then applied to a combustible engine will it burn? Yes and proven.
OK so then all that is needed in SIMPLE terms for the layman/women out there is to get it to burn inside the engine (without being to technical).
LPG does the same thing and they said it would NOT work.
Also Jon: it comes across very clearly in this thread that you are NOT willing to take up the offer of MIKE (in this thread) and I quote:
“why not settle this properly? Why don’t Richard & jon meet up and both parties give a sum of money to a trusted third party.
Jon fills his tank to the brim & they drive off for a couple of hours ’til the fuel light comes on to get an idea of the fuel economy”.
Because you have a BIKE! guess what I will supply the vehicle which makes it NON biased on both of your parts along with the general public finally getting the answer FROM Both of you (Richard Bird and Jon) who neither I have meet or had any dealings with.
I also not Jon that you work for a Solar Panel Company, so to say you may have a biased opinion against anything else other than Solar who pay your wages is maybe an understatement, but then again I am sure you will have a go at getting out of that one as you seem to do on each thread.Jon you cannot be right ALL OF THE TIME as probability says you must be wrong at some point, but then most of us know that dont we people?
I am not here to take either side just doing the logic/facts test as stated above, simples as the meerkats say.
So Jon and Richard lets settle this once and for all, its a simple test, who will say NO now? my money is on Jon who will come up with another one of his get out of jail free cards answers “I have a Bike” Richard are you up for it?
Jon:
Hi there MD,
For a Cambridge grad in maths I would not expect you to know about conservation of energy and thermodynamics, but I am surprised that you don’t as it is pretty elementary physics. I am also surprised at how little you know of the scientific method, logic, the English language and how to present an argument.
You seem to have misunderstood, misread and be misrepresenting everything I have stated previously. This is called the straw man fallacy and I won’t rise to it. Don’t they teach logic and debating technique at Cambridge?
As I have said already… on this very page… taking up Mikes offer is pointless, it would prove nothing, there are way too many variables to say anything about any results you may get. You need a controlled experiment.
I am completely open to being proven wrong, science is all about adjusting theories as new evidence becomes available, I just that I won’t accept anecdote and bad science as evidence. There is a reason why no one has ever shown me a properly controlled test of this stuff with a positive outcome , and a reason why I can point to several properly controlled experiments with a zero or negative result.
I don’t work for an specific solar panel company (or indeed “Solar Panel Company”, whoever they are). I am a renewable energy engineer and as such I do know a thing or two about engineering and renewable energy. Who pays my wages has no bearing on good and bad science and it is nothing short of bizarre to see any connection.
Please, go back and have another read through…
8 March 2011, 12:05 amMD:
MD:
Jon just as expected from you, forget all the clever stuff from you and your words, try a simple answer to this. You quote “As I have said already… on this very page… taking up Mikes offer is pointless, it would prove nothing, there are way too many variables to say anything about any results you may get. You need a controlled experiment”. WRONG JON it would not be pointless as IT WOULD SETTLE the matter of whether it worked or not right before both of your eyes, as you always criticize everyone and especially Richard Bird who like you has a right to prove what he is saying. THEN if there is an improvment in the fuel/mpg then it can be taken further in a controlled experiment as you put it.
I also quote you” I am completely open to being proven wrong” well in that case take the test or is it that you cannot drive a vehicle? Sorry but you say in your own word you have a bike, why is that in this day and age may I ask? So you travel to work by bike?
As for who pays your wages and again I quote you “I don’t work for an specific solar panel company (or indeed “Solar Panel Company”, whoever they are). I am a renewable energy engineer and as such I do know a thing or two about engineering and renewable energy. Who pays my wages has no bearing on good and bad science and it is nothing short of bizarre to see any connection”.
The short of bizarre to see any connection, well not really as you have stated you work within the Solar industry to which you would want to promote this and protect this industry surely after all they are the ones who feed you, just as it would be the same if you was working for an oil industry company. So there IS a relavance to this as anyone else can see.
As for bad science as you state, there has to be a starting point to any debate to which it can be taken to the next level surely you would agree on that?
So start with the Test and then depending on the outcome (if it works or not in principle) then do the science test as to your request if there is seen to be an improvment.
End result, does it work yes or no, simple.
I have very good connections with Honda who are willing to supply 2 brand new identical engines crated to anywhere in the world for a bench tests with a HHO system fitted to one. Tested in a scientific enviroment as you put it, you can even call the shots as I am sure we can get enough independent people to be present to make sure no foul play is to hand, all that is then needed is say Richard Bird to also be present and one of his sytems fitted.
So Jon NO IT IS NOT POINTLESS maybe in your eyes but not in the general publics eyes along with the planet or are you just trying to get out of it, seems like it.
I challenge you to the test, anybody else willing to support this and back this up? After all I am supplying the vehicle along with Honda for the test engines etc what has Jon got to do?
Drive a car, simple
Over to you Jon and Richard and the rest of you to support this.
Managing Director
8 March 2011, 10:21 amMD:
Hi Jon:
I quote you” For a Cambridge grad in maths I would not expect you to know about conservation of energy and thermodynamics, but I am surprised that you don’t as it is pretty elementary physics. I am also surprised at how little you know of the scientific method, logic, the English language and how to present an argument”.
This is NOT about the English Language of how to present an argument, I am not argumentation but somewhat perplexed that you need to state this. After all look at the English language that you have written and again I quote you” I just that I won’t accept” English Grammer indead and there is more from you BUT this is NOT the point even though YOU choose to raise this, side tracking like a politician.
Jon very simple the debate is about whether HHO works or not and your argument with this, as you believe it is a scam and does not work. Is this correct or not on your part?
Try and answer this with a simple YES or NO.
Instead of the argument which we HAVE all got from you about this on this thread.
Now answer this, do you have a driving licience? as yes this is relevant reference to you being able to take the test or not (whether you are willing to or not is another story).
Then we can go from there as to whether to set this up with you (if you can drive a car with a licience) or with someone else and independant witnesses.
As the debate is on going lets get down to basics and start from the begining with the first test in a controlled enviroment.
Simple: 1 plus 1 = 2 before we get to Euler’s formula V – E + F = 1 which will be the outcome of the winner.
Jon are you willing to take part Yes or No ?
Richard Bird are you willing to take part YES or No ?
Come on Joe public support this please and settle the debate amicable between Jon and Richard.
Who is your money on?
My email address for anyone who wishes to contact me on this thread/debate and HHO is:
cambridgegradmd@gmail.com
Anyone willing to shed any further light on either person mentioned above or the HHO product in general would be treated in strict confidence with myself.
M.D
8 March 2011, 11:49 amMD:
Jon
Also reading your first reply to my first thread, you have completely avoided the very simple points that I have stated.
I quote again:
2:Does the systems that we are talking about produce gas/hydrogen? Yes and proven.
3:Does Hydrogen Burn? Yes and proven.
4:So then IF this is the case, then applied to a combustible engine will it burn? Yes and proven.
Are the above statements True or False?
Just try and answer the questions in a simple manner as going about the way you have done in the past makes you very much like a Politician, avoiding the Truth when confronted. Look at where this country is now due to this approach, joe public has no faith in the country or government and that is why 1500 Brits are leaving per month with 500 non Brits arriving to start living off the tax payer. But that is another story.
Lets keep to this one please (bet you cant).
Answer the very simple questions above please.
Remember we are all NOT Einstein, keep it simple if you can.
Looking forward to see your answer/s on this (anybody want to bet he wont keep it simple?)
Regards M.D
8 March 2011, 12:44 pmMD:
Jon,
Am I mistaken or not that you have decided NOT to publish my reply threads in answer to your reply to my FIRST thread on the subject of hho and Richard Bird/Mike’s reply.
All threads that I sent to you have been saved and if correct that you refuse to publish these on here then it admits to your guilt and hiding behind the truth.
These therefor if I am correct in assuming that you are NOT willing to publish will then be forwarded as evidence against you and your plight to debunk the HHO system.
I like many others here are neutral towards this but would like answers as it could help towards saving this planet, now is that a bad thing?
Over to you, Publish what I say please as surely IF you believe you are correct in what you are saying then my threads should not be worrying to you, or ARE THEY?
Regards M.D
PS will appoligise to you IF you publish my threads as this will be a feather in your cap to add towards your beliefs.
8 March 2011, 2:16 pmMD:
Jon,
My appoligises are here if you publish my threads
(sorry just noticed comment awaits moderation)
Got ahead of myself.
M.D
8 March 2011, 2:18 pmJon:
M.D. – So many logical fallacies that I don’t know where to start, this is as clearer example of proof by verbosity as I have ever seen with straw men all over the place… I just can’t be bothered to respond to these bullying tactics… Is this how you operate in reality or just when given the anonymity of the internet?
I can’t answer your questions because they are based on a fundamental mis/non understanding of reality, it is not because I’m avoiding them.
Look, it works like this; thermodynamics says that you cant get more energy from a closed system than you put into it, in fact it also says you can’t even ever break even. If your system is closed (you don’t have an additional source of energy for your HHO thing, it has to get its energy from the engine’s electrical system) then you can’t get more energy out of it, there is no more energy to get out, if there were then you would have a perpetual motion machine. Energy in (from the fuel) has to equal energy out (motion, noise, heat), the engine cannot consume more energy than it emits nor emit more energy than it consumes.
Now promoters of HHO will say this it is me that does not understand and then pull a bewildering array of alternative explanations for how it works right out of their arses, as soon as people like me shoot the latest explanation down another even more absurd one appears – read more on this here http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/141 – this is very typical con man behavior. Have you ever heard the expression “bullshit baffles brains”? Because that is what they are doing to you.
You are welcome to have your experiment with Richard, it is no concern of mine but I don’t want to be part of it because its results are going to be meaningless. Saying they are not going to be meaningless does not make it true (unless you are narcissist of course? in which case this conversation is truly pointless).
If you subject HHO to scientifically rigorous experimentation you will find it to not work, if you subject it to experimentation without controls or error analysis ect. God only knows what you will discover… which is precisly the point of having controls, so you know what is going on. Without controls you may as well assume it is a psychic in Australia causing your improvement in MPG because you have no way of knowing if it is not.
Here is an example of an on road test on HHO carried out with dubious methodology controls buy people with unknown credentials. Click here.
Here is an example of a blinded off road test carried out by well qualified people – See the test details here and the results here.
This is the automotive version of homeopathy, if you think HHO works then you probably also believe in fairies / mobile phones cause cancer / vaccines cause autism / 911 was an inside job / black is white / the Earth is only 6000 years old… and so on… you have belief in something despite the evidence to the contrary and I just can’t wrap my head around that kind of self delusion.
8 March 2011, 8:47 pmMD:
Hello Jon,
As predicted a Politicians stance on the relatively simple questions that a 10 year old could answer in my threads above.
Avoidance of answering very simple question in a simple manner means a sign of guilt on your part in layman’s language.
What you do not clearly appreciate is that yes you may be academic but approx 80% of people reading this thread are NOT, hence the simple approach, back to basics approach in order for those to understand what is going on here.
Blinding us all with your science is a cover to the basics of what is REALLY going on and I am sure many people are working this out for themselves (when you read ONLY your answers to everyone it comes across very clearly that you have your motives).
All we are seeking is THE TRUTH as it is this that could help towards saving the planet for our future generation (my daughter).
This is MY motive to ALL of this like so many others out there, as for you stating that I am hiding behind the internet.
I have given my email address above in the thread (here it is again cambridgegradmd@gmail.com) along now with my phone number 00359 (Bulgaria) (0)884128209 and yes I am BRITISH along with my wife (semi retired ex pats living a good ECO life in South Bulgaria).
I might add that we are also Christians along with being good honest people trying also to help mother earth here by living of the land (organic garden) with Mineral spring water from our well.
So hopefully now you have a clearer picture as to who I/we are and why my interest in this thread/subject.
I have nothing to hide here unlike yourself (as we have all worked out here with you carrying a huge chip on your shoulder) but here is sum good advice, try helping this planet along with helping others before knocking everything that comes your way.
Take a very simple test (but you wont why?)
Simple, I also not that Richard Bird IS WILLING TO TAKE THE CHALLENGE, (a thread above) what does that say?
40/15 in favour of Richard Bird if playing tennis! who will win the match point?
You could not even answer the simple question as to whether or not you have a driving licence, simple question to answer wouldn’t you think? But then you have a Bike (your words here).
What does that say? Richard Bird is willing to back up what he and his Company are saying by taking the test, so why wont you?
Because in the back of your mind you don’t want egg on your face do you? So put up or shut up as the saying goes.
Sorry but you are not helping to support what you are saying as it has become more and more clearer by the day and all you had to do IS DRIVE A CAR! Which I would supply to make sure no FOUL play was to hand.
Enough said here I think.
Just one last point I am 49 years of age Ltd Company Director of numerous companies and yes an ex Cambridge Grad (Math) now semi retired, not sum jumped up youngster trying to cause havoc here.
Just seeking the TRUTH Thats All.
Over to you Jon (want to call me for a chat?) or anyone else for that matter, call or email me please.
Regards M.Director (John)
9 March 2011, 11:56 amMD:
Jon/Richard and others:
I just want to make it totally clear to everyone reading this thread that I have never meet Jon Starbucks or Richard Bird or anyone else on this thread. Myself and Ltd Companies are NOT connected in anyway with either parties or anything to do with any HHO product .
As of yet!
Depending on a test result and that is WHY i want Jon there.
But are more than willing to help this debate as to whether the system works or not. In view of the fact that IF this does and I am leaning more towards Richards Bird product (but need further proof hence to proposed test) to then take the matter further myself.
Unless Jon you are willing to prove me wrong otherwise which you have failed to do so at this point by avoiding simple questions (driving Licence and take the test etc).
Jon IF ONLY you had answered the simple questions that I had put to you. You would then have swayed me towards yourself but its because of this that has made me and others think you have a hidden agenda.
The Truth is what we ALL seek, can’t you see that?
So do you have a valid Driving Licence or not? Do you see where I am going with this?
Sorry but you have let yourself down with this as Richard Bird IS WILLING TO TAKE THE TEST, but YOU ARE NOT WHY? (Cant drive?)
Now that does not take rocket science to work out what is going on here does it?
So Jon i suppose you are now going to give me more quotes along with about Rocket Science, save it you have lost the credibility that I was led to believe by you that you had.
Sorry but unless you agree to answer the very simple questions in the threads above and attend the test then it does NOT look very favourable towards you argument as to whether HHO Systems work or NOT. Actions speak louder than words as they say!
Regards M.D (John)
9 March 2011, 5:58 pmmatthew:
can i ask Jon, are you a religious man, i did read somewhere some years ago, i cant quote, that science had provided lots of means of alterntive energy sources, but rights and patents had been bought by our great oil companies and buried, just as i have read that automotive manufacturers are provided with subsidies from these same great oil companies. So how can we believe anything science tell us when anything can be bought, just look at our govenment.
10 March 2011, 4:39 pmMD:
Jon:
Well now you have proved even more to me and others as you will very well soon see, that you have NOT published other update threads from myself, the question I ask myself is WHY? Guilt can only be the answer and to ashamed to admit you are wrong.
Shame on you now the TRUTH WILKL be told about you as it turns out that you have done this before once backed into a corner.
Make no mistake about this and who I am, you have my details along with others yet you choose not to post them.
Now lets develope the website to prove who you really are, you have made a very grave mistake in doing what you have done.
Th TRUTH is all that I WAS SEEKING no I have the TRUTH about you and others will now get to know about this.
You have lost any crediability now from me and others will follow.
You shout about SCAMS but it is clearly you who is a sum what delusions of grandeur.
You have my email and contact number try and putthis right before it gets out of hand on your part.
My motive is making this world a better place for my daughter and her children lord willing, simple that is all. You have failed me to which I will for my daughters sake take this as far as I can go.
One last note, One of my Ltd Companies turned over a a 9 figure sum and I own 9 other Ltd Companies so contact and funding is not an issue, money talks as they say.
Regards M.D (John)
10 March 2011, 8:34 pmjulian:
I have been reading this blog with interest as I believed it will help me make an informed choice. I am disappointed to see that you have removed some threads from MD and Richard Bird. I am afraid that you may have shown your cards and are not interested in the debate as to whether or not HHO is a serious alternative fuel. When the debate doesn’t go your way you remove the comment. I cannot understand your motives. I shall carry out my own research as to whether HHO works or not.
11 March 2011, 8:32 pmJon:
Hi Julian,
11 March 2011, 10:56 pmI removed MD’s posts because of the quantity and length of them and his total lack of desire to enter into any kind of debate or read anything I had written to him. I suspect he is not well at all, it is sad to watch someone publicly do that to them self. Additionally he made several very unpleasant threats against me personally. I don’t need that kind of crap, this is my blog and if you want an adult intelligent debate then I’m all for that, but shouting at me, abusing me, blatant lying, threatening me, just general trolling…. not so much.
matthew:
If anyone would like to read some oficial test results on this subject have a look at this link http://papers.sae.org/2010-01-2190 then make your mind up
15 March 2011, 8:40 pmJon:
All I see is the paper’s abstract, no tests or results or conclusions. How are we to draw anything from this?
15 March 2011, 8:52 pmI have seen several of these before and they always have some fundamental error in them (usually it is that they don’t use a closed system) but I’d like nothing more than to see one that does not. Do you have a copy that we can all read?
Richard Bird:
Your understanding of the laws of Thermodynamics is very 2-dimensional. There are other factors involved (like the bumble-bee scenario-breaks all laws and should not be able to fly).
Superchargers are driven from the engines crankshaft and therefore cannot produce more power than they draw (Laws of Thermodynamics). So Mercedes and many other manufacturers must be crazy to use them! The fact you are forgetting is they force feed air (oxygen) into the combustion chamber to enhance combustion. There is a clue here HH…O is extra Oxygen to enhance combustion.
Nitrous Oxide cannot work either yet it does by adding 33.333% oxygen to aid combustion. Now guess how much Oxygen we put in…33.3333%.
I also have a large document consisting of 900 pages of official research papers plus over 2100 worldwide Patents totalling 3000 pages of scientific evidence. This includes 17 scientific papers published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) which is a huge organization with over 120,000 members! Between the many famous members of the past, you’ll find names like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Orville Wright, Jon Starbuck (opps sorry don’t know how that slipped in, obviously a misprint!!).
If you Jon or any sceptics would like me to forward these documents please contact me at info@hydrotechnix.com.
Now forget all of the above
NOW PAY ATTENTION…THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART…UNREFUTABLE LABORATORY PROOF
I recently had the honoured opportunity to have a 5 hour consultation with Dr Stephen Samuel of Oxford Brookes University [Dr. Samuel's email removed by Jon] This was arranged and paid for by MAS which is a UK Government based Manufacturing Association Organisation. Dr Samuel is a world renowned expert in Thermodynamics and Combustion (NOT an armchair physicist!) His multi million pound research facility is funded currently by Formula One and BMW. He has approximately 5 stationery engines linked to powerful analysis computers in laboratory test conditions. He confirmed all the research we have completed that HHO works! He has experimented with HHO and written a Scientific Paper on the results. The paper is available from the Society of Automotive Engineers website http://www.sae.org and was published on 25th October 2010. The paper is entitled ‘Hydrogen enriched diesel combustion‘. The test with HHO was performed on a single cylinder diesel engine in a laboratory setup using a primitive ‘wet’ cell design, 3 years ago. I must point our technology has advanced greatly from the HHO equipment used!! From the summary the following conclusion was drawn
“The work identified that fuel consumption, engine out CO2 and CO could be reduced significantly by introducing small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen in the airstream of a conventional diesel engine” also
“This work also identified optimum level of hydrogen for reducing engine out NOx levels. The experiments and the systematic approach followed to reduce the fuel consumption and CO2 are presented in this paper”
If you cannot afford the $22 to download the document then call or email Dr Samuels, he will confirm YOU are mistaken!! You say his work is probably flawed. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you come out with this rubbish?
Please impress us all by first publishing this email and also by admitting the evidence is piling up to the sky in the case of HHO.
17 March 2011, 7:58 pmJon:
Richard, you may be many things but a scientist and/or engineer you are not. Bumblebees can fly and how they achieve flight is very well understood by science. My understanding of thermodynamics is, by its very nature, four dimensional. Your nitrous oxide and supercharger analogies, like HHO, work because they result in consuming more fuel not less. You really are not doing yourself any favors displaying your non-understanding of physics like this.
18 March 2011, 7:39 pmI will contact your Dr. Samuels and find out what he has done with your HHO unit and discuss with him, like adults, what experiments he carried out and what results and conclusions he has come to. If he is a scientist at Oxford Brooks as you claim then he and I will be open to a frank discussion and critique of whatever has taken place and any conclusions drawn. Sadly these are things have never been able to do with you or your kind.
Jon:
Dear Richard,
I have now spoken Dr Stephen Samuel (Senior Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University) and I have read his paper…. Far from confirming that I am mistaken, actually he confirmed for me that you are.
I can also confirm that I found nothing wrong with him or his experiment or his conclusions. At best you have not understood what experiment was undertaken or the results or conclusions drawn from it. You have cherry picked a couple of lines that appear to support what you say and have ignored the main thrust of the entire paper.
But I don’t blame you, you have no education to draw on, no tools to read or understand complicated scientific papers. I am going to write it all down for you and your friends in easy to understand language… just as soon as I get a moment…
Thanks,
Jon.
22 March 2011, 5:07 pmRichard Bird:
Who do you think you are? You have no idea of my education. [snip]
There is no complication with this or other scientific papers I have read. [snip]
You have no scientific proof HHO does not work. I have much proof it does.
22 March 2011, 10:52 pmJon:
Richard,
I don’t need to know about your education to know that you don’t know how to read a scientific paper.
May I draw your attention to the line in Dr. Samuel’s paper which says:
“The combination of change in combustion characteristics and added energy from hydrogen even though it is minimal are the main contributors for the increased fuel economy”.
Or to put it another way, since the HHO maker’s electrical energy was coming from the electrical outlet in the wall then this is why we saw a drop in fuel consumption. Or to put it yet another way, the laws of thermodynamics were not broken since it was not a closed system.
Dr. Samuel also says in an email to me that this experiment was a study into how HHO influences the combustion and emission characteristics of the diesel engine, not for analysing well to wheel fuel economy benefit.
I don’t have proof that HHO does not work because that is a logical fallacy, science cannot prove a negative. You have so far not shown me any proof that it does work.
Richard Bird, you are at best mistaken and at worst a con man. You are selling a product that cannot work and for which you have no decent reason to believe that it does work.
24 March 2011, 4:30 pmHHO Observer:
Just to clear up I am not putting up an argument for or against these HHO systems. I am not saying that Mr. Bird or his company are scammers, but I just wanted to point out a few things about ANY SCAM which people should look out for, you need to look outside the box and think logically.
Firstly, many companies try to sell their trustworthyness by claiming things like “Our products have achieved the’CE’ and ‘E’ marks.” Just remeber that these marks only signify that they comply with current EU directives, they do not in any way imply or prove that the technology of the product is viable.
Also, “we have been granted patents.” The only thing a patent proves is that you have protected the DESIGN of the product. Again, it has absolutely no bearing on the effectiveness of the technology etc etc.
Look out for the language. “Could boost your fuel economy by up to 50%.” The words “could” and “up to” are always a dead giveaway that the claims have been exaggerated. Even if a company claims that their product has been scientifically proven (i.e. dietry supplements claiming rapid weight loss) they are neally always conditional claims i.e. the smallprint will say things like “If taken 16 times a day accompanied by a healthy diet and at least 4 hours of intense training over a 12 month period.” and even then the benefits could so minimal that it is not cost effective. So even if HHO was scientifically proven to work, it might only merely imply that in the right circumstances, on the right vehicle, with the right driver, on the right day there may be a minimal benefit.
Never ever listen to testimonials for 2 simple reasons. There are going to be two types of customers, those that liked the product and those that didn’t. No business is ever going to let you hear from the ones that didn’t. And you will be forcefed a handpicked sample of those that did. There is a condition known to biologists as a ‘placebo.’ Anyone who has just paid a large ammount of money for a system which they believe is saving fuelk may notice a slight difference simply because they are looking for it. Noone ever sat and worked out their precise mpg before buying the system to compare it at a later date, nor will they have analysed the figures from an average of the same journey multiple times hence not a fair test. What they will actually do is simply compare rough new figures with what they BELIEVE the old figures to be i.e. i used to get ‘about’ 30 mpg and now I get ‘about’ 40. So not really reliable.
28 March 2011, 6:45 pmScott:
After reading the whole of this thread I would like to add a coupple of my own opinions to the mixture…
Jon – you are so arrogant and you give the rest if the world’s graduates a bad name. Mr “I have a degree in physics and a degree in renewable energy, that makes me a scientist and an engineer” it certainly does not! Just like a Politics degree does not make someone a politician, an arts degree does not make you Picasso, a law degree doesn’t mean your an effective or successful lawyer, and no matter how many business graduates pass out each year 9 out of ten start up businesses will still fail within their first 2 years (a statistical fact by the way!)
I am a graduate, and I know for sure that all a degree does is open you up to general THEORY on GENERIC topics. They do not make you an expert in anything, that comes with experience…and so that does not make you a respected expert in the research of Hydrogen as an alternative fuel. The only thing you can be an expert in is your field of expertise.
Your comment “I have seen this before and there is neally always a flaw” suggests to me that you are so utterly biased against HHO that even if you were slapped with a Albert Einstein led experiment which proved it you would find some kind of error.
I’m not saying your argument is not warranted, I actually agree that HHO is an exaggerated gimmick, but you are your own worst enemy because you do not invite peoples opinions and open them up to reasonable debate (like you would in a degree assignment) but you just shit all over people with your arrogant responses that you yourself cannot back up. The BBC managed to disprove that Oil Drum’s generators don’t work, why can’t yopu do the same. You cannot argue this doesn’t work because there is no evidence, when you clearly can’t back up your own argument with evidence, and notice I didn’t say with science, I said evidence.
Sure science cannot prove a negative, but a straight forward experiment can DISPROVE a lie. You don’t have to scientificaaly prove that the technology doesn’t work, but in fact you can use maths to prove that either no efficiency has been achieved or that any minimal improvement which may or may not have resulted from added hydrogen doesn’t economically justify the investment – hence proving it to be a scam without the need for scientific proof.
This argument has got lost with itself – whether or not the technology works is subsidiary to whether or not it saves people money – which is what it is REALLY about. Just like dietry supplements do scientifically work – but very rarely offer substantial enough benefits to justify their inclusion in any fitness regime.
If you do not allow this post you will lose all my respect, because I think that this website’s existence is actually proof of your good character and good intentions.
29 March 2011, 12:57 ammatthew:
hello Jon and Carnot, love the blog. Richard is clearly a self believer and will grasp whatever “cherry picked” info from what could of been a great way to conclude his experiment and prove his nutty theory. im a qualified BMW technician by trade and laughed when i saw his ebay wonder listing, i can also agree with the diy bio diesel kits being dangerous! can you suggest to me a good way to assist in my mission to increase my MPG other than using fullers earth and removing dye from agricutural diesel, lol i have set my tyre pressures and altered my driving style, i have a small x reg diesel fiesta van, again fantastic slaying of a great money grabbing selfish con man, both verbaly and technically, i salute you both.
30 April 2011, 1:26 amWendy:
Hi Jon, I’m not a scientist nor would I ever claim to much about the whole subject. On the subject of HHO or H2O2, I found this study done in a university in Australia which says that it does work, see the abstract below. If you would like the whole paper I would be happy to email it to you, which may be helpful.
It can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30420/description#description
[snip by admin]
9 May 2011, 12:05 pmJon:
Hi Wendy,
13 May 2011, 1:55 amThanks for your comment. It looks like a very similar experiment to the one I discuss here – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/737 – To have an on board HHO generator consuming electricity (and therefore more fuel) in the vehicle is not the same as having a bottle of hydrogen (or HHO produced from an external source of electricity) in a lab. It should be very simple to get a vehicle equipped with HHO in a lab and show that it runs more efficiently. And yet no one does this, it is all “real world” testing (and therefore not controlled) and anecdote and logical fallacy. The truth is that they have put these things to test in the lab and they don’t work which is why you never hear about it from the people trying to sell it to you.
brian:
hi. starbuck said this does not work sorry but he does not know what he is talking about it does work i have a unit fitted to my 4×4 fitted by one of hydrotecnix fitters and it works very well i am getting a 38% more mpg out of my 4×4 and it runs a lot smother so starbuck get your facts right . by the way my car runs greener now than it ever has done. im proud it have it fitted .shame people read your rubbish . you offered a challange to Mr bird he excepted but you didnt take him up on it WHY. are you a coward as well. I suppose this will be removed . BRIAN
14 May 2011, 6:28 pmester:
Excuse me but…
15 May 2011, 4:45 amAll you tell about is a nosense.
It’s easy!!!
For the european LAW you can’t do ANY change in your motor.
Like NOS kit the HHO kit is only for NO ON STREET USE.
IF you use a HHO kit you MUST do a new car registration ’cause the kit invalid the original registration – in Germnay, Sweden, Danmark, Italy, ecc. –
So is no legal if no AUTHORIZED by Germnay, Sweden, Danmark, Italy, ecc. you have a lot of problem if police see it in your motor!!!
IT’S NOT LEGAL!!!!!!!!!
STOP
Jon:
Hi Brian, I seen not that I must be wrong and you must have been right all the time, I had not realised that you said so otherwise I would have seen the error of my ways, now that I know that you say it is true I realise that I must have been wrong all the time…
16 May 2011, 11:10 pmmick:
hi jon,
21 May 2011, 6:16 amyou say that you have degrees, shame one of them wasn’t in english.
i was recently at a hybrid seminar that was attended by richard bird plus a senior designer of lotus cars hybrid division amongst others, a lot of what they said went over my head but one thing i did notice was that at the end they were all discussing the demonstration equipment with him and NONE of them were ridiculing his system quite the reverse.
these were all engineers of one sort or another and know what they are talking about.
conclusion if they accept that it works, then along with other testimonials from ordinary people who have had it fitted to their vehicles and found that it does indeed save them money i have to say your thread is just a load of petro-chemical inspired bullshit.
by the way is it true you don’t actually drive a car but ride a bike
Mick
brian:
sorry Jon ,sarcasm is the lowest form of wit .i know it does work.I feel sorry for you.If you dont believe in it. why do you not get together with Mr bird and do tests just to prove your point and settle this argument. I rang Mr Bird To find out more about this conversation before i had it done , and all i got was good reports from the people ive had words with . Please sort this out once and for all and lay it to rest Brian
21 May 2011, 4:33 pmJon:
Mick,
23 May 2011, 5:06 amYou are quite correct, none of my qualifications beyond GCSE are in English. What does that have to do with whether or not HHO is a valid technology or a scam?
So this “hybrid seminar” – care to tell us more about it? What/who/where/whern? Or are you making it up?
Your response is so full of logical fallacies that I can only point you here to let you have a read. When you have a valid point to make please come back and make it.
mick:
it so happens jon i’ve been doing some research of my own prior to being told about this thread. this included travelling 100 miles to go to the seminar that i mentioned in the earlier post, getting the views of the people there and talking to mr bird as well.i have also spoken to an installer of this system and some of his clients, from the addresses on his database all of which i picked at random so as to get a fair result. one of them mentioned this blog and as a RESPONSIBLE researcher i felt it was only right that i included it as well so as to get the full picture and can then make a calculated assumption on the evidence. which after reading this blog i notice is something you and your blinkered followers have failed to do, if you and they didn’t have their heads stuck in the sand all of you would see that it does indeed work.
23 May 2011, 5:28 pmbut that is something that you don’t want to hear or you would as brian suggests and lay it to rest for oce and all
if mr birds system is a scam then he is one of the best scammers i’ve ever heard of, as all i have been able to find so far are satisfied customers, and trading standards as far as i have been able to ascertain haven’t had acomplaint, thats some scam
i have however been able to formulate one clonclusion and so far and that is, if you were to take mr bird up on his offer, and he proved his system then it would be the end of your blog and you would once more sink back into being a non-entity once again
Jon:
Mick,
23 May 2011, 7:51 pmAs someone who likes to point out that my writing skills are not so good you could try using punctuation yourself, that way people could better understand what you are trying to say.
This “calculated assumption on the evidence” that you speak of, what evidence are you talking about? There is no evidence, this is my point.
Mr. Bird’s “offer” is a stupid one, what if I did try it and found it not to work, what then? Mr. Bird needs to prove it does work, all I would be to do was fail to get it to work…
Your language use such as “sink back into being a non-entity once again” is a red flag to me, I have seen it a lot before, it is an indicator of NPD.
clive:
re;Jon Starbucks Blog. exposing Psuedo Green nonsence, promoting science and critical thinking; Why does Jon Starbuck think “Science and critical thinking” need promoting? science has been around for centuries and critical thinking is something we all do naturally. He claims he can’t prove H.H.O doesn’t work as science cannot prove a negative…wrong! Science by it’s very nature has to prove a negative in order to prove a positive, the world is governed by cause and effect, positive and negative. this is natural law, without this nothing would exist, including You or I. A simple example of this would be electricity. it needs positive and negative in order to flow, otherwise it wouldn’t work. Jon Sturbuck claims he is promoting science yet he denies it’s negative aapect. I would say it is not the case he cannot prove H.H.O doesn’t work, rather that he won’t prove it does’nt. Why? because he supposedly works for s well known oil company! this of course is something else he denies, he won’t prove H.H.O doesn’t work, simply because he knows it doe’s I would contend it is not up to Richard Bird to prove his system works, rather it is up to Jon Starbuck to prove it doesn’t. Richard Bird has already proved it doe’s work, incidentally Mr.Bird is moving back to reading in June of this year from spain, so that should answer yet another criticism levelled by Mr.Starbuck, it is s basic scientific fact that mixing Hydrogen with fuel [petrol/diesel] creates a more efficient burn of the fossil fuel involved, thereby increasing M.P.G. and lowering emissions, another good example of cause and effect don’t you think? I would add if Jon Starbuck won’t prove his point he has no case to argue, and certainly should not post personal remarks on the web critizing others who think in a positive way, instead of the negative way in which he thinks, closed minds like his are closed to progress, science is all about experimenting in order to achieve positive results, Jon Starbuck I note, not only works for a well known oil company, but he also doesn’t drive a car, he prefers to cycle instead” hardly the criteria for criticizing the use of Hydrogen Conversions on Cars is it? to add I remember back in 1954, Rover came out with a Gas Turbine Engine, this too was quickly hushed up by the Big Oil Company’s. I also remember similar criticism of L.P.G some years ago. However unlike L.P.G, H.H.O doesn’t require a tank of gas to be fitted to your vehicle. With H.H.O once the engine is switched off all you are left with is a harmless bottle of water, hence Lloyds Insurance has given it’s approval, as has the D.V.L.A who will reduce your car tax duty because of it’s Green Credentials. I’ve had H.H.O fitted to my Volvo v70 D5 recently and atraightaway have noticed an 8 mpg increase which is continually improving, H.H.O initially has to “cleanse” the Engine Carbon Build-up for the first 300 miles approximately, before reaching it’s full potential. So I would suggest if Mr.Starbuck won’t prove this system doesn’t work, maybe he should get on his bike and pedal off into the sunset… Fuel Consumption Figures for my Volvo V70 D5 before Installation of H.H.O 35 M.P.G around town [daily 30 mile round trip] 41-43 M.P.G. on long journey. after Installation of H.H.O [First 350 miles] initially 54 M.P.G on long journey. 43 M.P.G. around town [daily 30 mile round trip].
28 May 2011, 5:43 pmJon:
Clive, I am gob smacked, I have no idea where to start. Have you skipped your meds or what?
28 May 2011, 6:59 pmclive:
closed minds can be treated by a psychiatrist I suggest you visit one urgently
28 May 2011, 9:46 pmclive:
your comment smacks of desperation only those of an infantile mind resort to sarcasm
28 May 2011, 10:09 pmJon:
Dear “clive”, I’m not being sarcastic, I really don’t know where to begin in responding to your bizarre list of clichéd logical fallacies and your total non-understanding of science and critical thinking, I just don’t have the time. I would not get anywhere anyway, I can tell from what you say that you are not interested. What is it to you, “clive”, anyway? Why do you care what I say about Hydrotechnix?
28 May 2011, 10:19 pmclive:
Dear Jon
29 May 2011, 4:56 pmyour comment “Have you skipped your Meds or what” is not sarcastic? perhaps you should consult your dictionary, Sarcasm and Scepticism is a very unfirm foundation on which to build your case. What Authority do you have to Question my understanding of “Science and Critical Thinking? if you can’t understand my concept that’s your loss not mine. I Don’t care what you say about “Hydrotechnix” that’s between you and them. I’m just a satisfied customer because It’s Saving Me Money.
Jon:
Clive, I was not being sarcastic there. Rude yes, sarcastic no.
My “authority” to question your grasp of science comes from your statement that science can be used to prove a negative, this is so fundamentally incorrect that I conclude that you have no knowledge or understanding of the scientific method.
Why does it not strike anyone as odd that the only satisfied customers of Hydrotechnix that we are presented with are ones that don’t have any idea how to design a decent test?
You are mistaken, it is not saving you money. It is in fact costing you more in fuel, it has to be. I’m really sorry but you have been scammed.
29 May 2011, 5:14 pmclive:
Dear Jon
29 May 2011, 5:58 pmI Suggest that You design a decent test I’m only a customer, Since you can’t prove a negative how would you arrive at a positive?. It is not rocket science to know when you are saving money. As you don’t drive a car and only ride a bicycle hoe do you know when we car drivers are saving money on fuel.? I Would be very interested in the results of any test you would care to conduct. If you can’t prove your case there is no point in me wasting time any further on what is after all only your opinion. Surely if it was costing me more in fuel you should be well pleased as an employee of a big oil company. I Hereby Rest my Case.
brian:
hi jon i just been looking at the comments that have been sent to you from this mick & clive surely we can not all be wrong, as you saw from my first letter Mr bird did offer to prove it does work you turned him down.may i ask why. you have told this clive he has been scammed , well he said he is getting good results.You must admit any result is better than none. my results are very good had my exhaust gases checked they are very low (great for planet earth ). fuel 38% better off.will be going on holl in the next few weeks so i will give you the results to you and Mr bird when i get back. by the way if this is a scam ,how come my insurance com, and the dvla do recognise it, so have they been scammed as well . I have wrong Mr bird as HIS tel no is available. if you dont know it is avilable on his web site not like yours why dont ring him to meetup to sort this out as
29 May 2011, 6:26 pmMr bird has told me you have band him from this blog. by the way i am a fully qualified motor vehicle engineer and technician and have been for 40 years so no,one scams me. im sorry you dont want to know the facts but i have them in black and white. please answer with out any sarcastic/ rude remarks as this shows a poor mentaity, which i am sure you have,not brian
Jon:
Hi Brian,
29 May 2011, 9:31 pmOf course you Mick and Clive could all be wrong. I could also be wrong. However the balance of probability is that it is more likely that it you guys that are mistaken. I say this because there is no evidence that that you are right, every time I am aware of this “technology” having been tested under controlled conditions it fails, the only time anyone is seen to get it to “work” is when it is tested without controls, I am unaware of any plausible mechanism by which it could work (38% better off? That is insane! You say you are an engineer, so tell me where is this energy coming from?).
It is just like homeopathic remedies, just because millions of people swear they work does not mean there is a shred of truth in it. This is why science is useful, it is all about separating truth from fiction. If there is any truth to HHO then why can no one show me any good evidence to back the claims up? A 38% increase in MPG is huge, it should be very simple show me that I am wrong and yet no one ever does, they just insist that it works.
As for the DVLA, they have told me in a letter (published on this blog somewhere – search for it) that HHO is not a recognized technology and qualifies you for no benefits. If you have reduced anything from either the DVLA or your insurance that someone has made a mistake.
Mr. Bird’s IP address is blocked from my web server because someone at that IP spams me and I will not tolerate that. Me callimg him on the telephone would not solve anything, and as for meeting up with him… it is a dam long and expensive way to travel… much easier and cheaper would be for him to submit his magic machine for testing to someone like Millbroke Proving Ground, but he won’t do that… I wonder why?
Jon:
Clive,
29 May 2011, 9:43 pmI don’t need to design a test, there are professionals out there that do this for as living. Look up Millbroke Proving Ground as one example, they test this kind of stuff all the time… and it never is shown to work.
Science is about testing for an effect, if i tried out HHO and failed to detect anything that would not prove it does not work (prove a negative), however you are not claiming a small effect that I can’t measure, you are talking about measuring a large positive effect so it should be very easy to show me that I am wrong… and yet no one ever does.
Whether or not I own a car is irrelevant. Saying I am employed by “big oil” is crazy, two minutes with Google should show you that you could not be more wrong about that.
brian:
I emailed Mr BIRD and this is his reply. are you going to allow his commint to stay on . Same old answer, if he wants to pay the £8000 for a Millbrook test then Im up for it! You know and I know and thousands of others know it works so why waste £8K of my hard earned money just so he can interpret it and make another excuss. Someone spamming him from this IP address…please thats so feeble!
Remember we are all mistaken…including the South Korean government, Nasa and 2.8 million people in the US. FROM Mr RICHARD BIRD through brian
30 May 2011, 9:22 pmJon:
Brian, it is kinda hard to follow what you are trying to say some times, but I think I have got it. The thing I’m not selling anything and not making any claims, Mr Bird is. That is why it is up to him to pay the fee and show the world that it does work.
Homeopaths know that their medicine-with-no-medicine-in-it cures people, when scientists test it it is found not to work what do you think the homeopaths do then? Do you think they then go study to become an MD? Of course they don’t, they blame the scientists.
What if i did pay for the test and it failed? What would happen then? Do you think Mr. Bird would give me my money back, refund all his customers and pack in his business? No of course he would not, and that is why I won’t pay for the test, because he would not admit he was wrong or stop what he is doing, he has too much invested in he nonsense to do that. THat is why we have people like Trading Standards in the the UK and I presume why Mr Bird operates out of Spain.
31 May 2011, 2:03 ambrian:
I am wondering just what is your interest in H.H.O. Why should Richard Bird pay £8,000 to prove anything to you? You are the one who set up this
31 May 2011, 10:44 pmblog. If you can’t prove anything (Scientifically Or Otherwise) You should withdraw your Blog, Or Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.
I Think Clive And Others have already proved you wrong with their M.P.G. figures. Remember It Is Your Word Against The South Korean Gov’t,
NASA, and 2.8 Million People in the U.S. Not to mention Spain ,the U.K and other places, so why do you assume such superiority and insist we
are all wrong? without proof you are making yourself a laughing stock. You go on about Richard not living in the U.K. why aren’t you living in
the U.K.? If you are who you say you are you should be only too happy to prove us all wrong. Incidentally Richard is moving back to the U.K.so if you do live here you could always set up a meeting.by the way i have my own comp and will be having all my vehicles converted as i am very imprest with the mpg
Jon:
Brian,
31 May 2011, 11:03 pmUnless you read my responses to you and respond to what I say, rather than responding to what I don’t say, this is not going to work. Straw man arguments, red herrings, leading questions, irrelevant questions… these are not tolerated on my blog. I have explained why Richard has to prove his “technology” many times before, also why I con’t prove anything, why I won’t put my money where my mouth is, why you and your friends have so far proved nothing, my interest in HHO… all you are doing is repeating yourself, over and over… there is no point in me responding again as you did not read it the last time I explained.
“South Korean Gov’t, NASA, and 2.8 Million People in the U.S”? What? Are you talking about the NASA document from 1972? LOL! South Korea? Numbers in the US that you just made up?
I am indeed who I say I am, who the fuck are you and why should I care?
Brian:
Your last response does not make any sense. How can I Respond to what you don’t say? That’s illogical. So you admit you can’t prove anything. That reduces your Blog to non-sensical bullshit! My questions are in response to your Blog, therefore if they are irrelevant as you claim, it follows
2 June 2011, 9:34 pmthat your Blog is also Irrelevant. It is in your interests to Withdraw it Immediately as your Argument is empty, null and void without proof. As For “Straw Man” arguments the only thing made of Straw must be in your head!. I don’t suppose you will publish this, that’s your prerogative. But that would only demonstrate cowardice on your part. Sorry i dont lower my self to your mentality by using bad language there is no need for that.
Jon:
Brian, You are an idiot. I don’t mean this as an insult I mean it literally, you have to be stupid, I don’t see any other explanation.
2 June 2011, 9:43 pmjulian:
I agree that this system requires some official testing. Millbrook would be perfect for this.
8 June 2011, 2:23 pmI have been playing around with HHO for some time with mixed results from various kits you find on the internet. However I now have a Hydrotechnix system installed into one of my vans, which has a 2.8cc engine. The system is drawing 20amps off my alternator and I would expect this to be a burden my fuel economy but does the opposite and gives me a constant 15% more in miles per gallon over 1500 miles before and 1500 miles after test with mixed loads and varying driving conditions. I could write off a 5% margin to a discrepancy but not 15% considering the additional load on the engine!!? I could drive like an angel without HHO and never get more that 23 miles per gallon but I am now achieving 25.5av from 22av. incidentally this will save me in the region of £1600 per year so YES I am very interested in this.
Before I continue, I am neither an academic nor an engineer but this was an eyes wide open test. Granted it will never (from what I have read) win you over, but I am convinced. Please don’t insult me or be rude to me. Maybe, just maybe the science you understand is not wrong but is just missing something?
You are bang on though Jon. At some point this does require some official testing. And yes I am very aware of past tests that would suggest that this is a load of bull. My question to you though Jon is will you keep the door very slightly ajar if any test that may happen in the future comes back in favor of HHO as an alternative fuel? In other words, what is your position in the event that a Millbrook test flies in the face of the science that you interpret and understand? 8 grand isn’t a lot of money for something as (potentially) important as this!
Jon:
Hi Julian,
8 June 2011, 5:34 pmThe thing is it has been tested at Millbrook, several times, and not been shown to work.
20A at 12V is 240W, very roughly half-a-horsepower. This is energy being taken from the engine and therefore from the fuel – you are consuming more fuel by having the thing switched on, so your extra 15% is actually 15%+240W.
Your margin of error in your experiment is almost certainly much larger than you think, you have to account for all the variables, the biggest of with is the human in the experiment, you.
Science invented the double blind study for a reason, if you don’t use it then all sots of preposterous woo appears to work – homeopathy is the obvious example, but pick your favorite – outside of double blind studies homeopathy has been shown, many times, to work! Inside a double blind study it never works any better than a placebo.
You need strict scientific controls to check that your experiment is valid and you won’t find them outside of a lab.
I am a scientist, I don’t have a “closed mind”, I look at the evidence…. and for HHO there is none, so why would I take it seriously?
And I agree that £8k is nothing when, if you are right, it will make you a millionaire overnight… but then it is a lot of money if you find that you are wrong and have to stop selling your product and refund all your customers and go and get a proper job…
brian:
jon i see you have admitted defeat as you can no longer give me a intelligent answer. do i now take it that you will remove your blog as all you can do is insult me and other people bye bye
8 June 2011, 7:44 pmjulian:
Hi Jon,
8 June 2011, 8:23 pmLike I said, I would expect the HHO device to load the engine and reduce the fuel consumption. Indeed when I first ‘played around’ with HHO that is exactly what happened (by constructing our own cell system using parts of the internet). We did at one point believe that we were getting somewhere but we were merely running too lean as we installed a maf enhancer, again off the internet.
But an extra 15% MPG from a Hydrotechnix system, I cannot think how I have achieved this just by variables; driving habits and conditions etc. I have been monitoring my fuel consumption for years?? Like I said, driving like an angel has never given me more than a 5% increase.
I have an analogy for you if you don’t mind; when I pull the trigger of a gun, the effect of the energy released in the cordite is far far greater than the effort to pull the trigger. An automatic weapon uses the same energy to reload and fire (I’m ex forces not some nutter). The comparison being the energy released from the HHO and fossil fuel mix when ignited is far greater than a conventional combustion, to the point the gains out strip the increased load on the engine.
I did something very foolish recently and would not advise any of your readers to copy this but; I ignited a balloon roughly the size of a melon containing HHO gas from my generator. The energy released was incredible, a shock wave rattled nearby windows. No flame was present as the explosion was instantaneous. The point that I am trying to make is the nature of the burn of the HHO and fuel mix must change and energy released from the new fuel mix is greater than the conventional fuel burn. I know this explanation has done its rounds in this blog but having seen the effect of an HHO explosion, in my non scientific mind, I can see how the introduction of HHO will enhance the efficiency and greatly speed up the combustion process. Again please don’t try this at home kids.
As a scientist I am sure you will reply with laws of thermodynamics of which I am ashamed to say I don’t fully understand. All I know is that this thing is saving me money and as a small business owner being screwed- that’s great!
Julian
Jon:
Hi Julian,
10 June 2011, 3:16 amI don’t think your automatic weapon analogy is valid, I think an automatic weapon uses excess energy to reload (but I don’t know much about guns).
Wen I did my own, very unscientific, experiment on MPG I found that my unmodified car’s MPG varied by as much as 40%, and all I was doing was driving it. Any 15% increase/decrease in MPG would have been lost in the 40% “noise”. Also, when I used to make biodiesel I swear that my van was much more responsive when I was driving on my own fuel even though I KNEW it was in my head.
I’m very intrigued to now how you managed to inflate your balloon, how did you pressurize it beyond atmospheric pressure (1 bar)? At 1 bar it would not get to the size of a melon.
The laws of thermodynamics are not complicated, they just sound like they are. The first law says you can never get more energy from something than you put in. The second says you can never even break even, there will always be some energy lost to inefficiency.
If you have not done so already, have a look at this – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/737
Jon.
julian:
Thanks Jon,
10 June 2011, 8:08 amThis has been very informative un like the slanging match between Pro HHO and Skeptic.
That is how I kind of understood the laws of thermodynamics, somehow I thought it was more complicated. I suppose the question is; is there more energy released by the action of the combustion of the HHO and diesel/petrol fuel mix than my 20amps required to produce the gas in the first place? The weapon analogy was to make a point as to the energy released in the explosion (from the action of pulling a trigger) as the cordite changes from one state to another comparable to the incredible explosion of a very small amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas combined with the conventional hydrocarbon fuel mix.
In the words of Harry Hill, there is only one way to find out….
I have a very simple test that will certainly put to bed my curiosity, I am not saying this is a scientific test but; I would like to run an engine over a period of time, say 6-10 hours just ticking over on idle and measure the volume of fuel used without and with an HHO device. The same engine on both tests, with no load apart from the fan kicking in.
Just an idea?
julian:
RE the balloon inflation, this was in fact a latex glove, don’t know if that makes a difference. To be fare, Richards HHO system in terms of its design and component parts is very good and the system belts out the gas. I can comment on this as I have used other systems from the internet (and this blog is directed at Hydrotechnix) It should be said that I used a system that is intended to be used in large vans, not one that is intended for cars etc.
julian
10 June 2011, 8:27 amUSRalph:
I read this blog, with much amusement. Of course the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken. Perhaps if a vehicles electrical system has excess capacity to power the hydrogen generator you could see a gain in energy output.
28 June 2011, 2:46 amBuilt a crude browns gas generator once, and had it installed on a Honda Motorcycle. It did seem to increase the mpg and the thing seemed to run better for a while. But the SS plates quickly corroded and it stopped working. That was years ago.
But then again maybe it was my imagination. I think you all should check out the Rossi E-cat. IF this is not a scam it will make this argument a not issue in about 20 years or less. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Using Nickel and Hydrogen. Lets hope this is not a scam.
Lars:
I bought my HHO system from [name removed by admin] in the Netherlands and have to say it works perfect, and not just with me but also some of my friends are adding HHO, all with positive results. What I don’t understand in this whole discussion, NASA has proven that adding 300ml/Min. per 1000m3 to gasoline gives a 45% better gasmilage (and they are not stupid at Nasa). The HHO generator uses 12A enginepower, which you can compare with driving with your lights on. So you save at least 35%, I even save 36% on petrol. Why calling it all nonsense when there are thousants of people saving fuel?. Are all these people with a HHO system in their car stupid? I went from 600km on a tank to 820km on a tank. I’ve also red somebody claiming it’s illegal. This is also not true. You are allowed to add additives to the fuel. HHO is also an additive. You can buy additives in every automotive store. You cannot compare adding HHO with LPG. You don’t drive on 100% HHO like with LPG, you just adding it to petrol or diesel which is allowed. You also don’t change anything to the engine. In Holland cars with a HHO system pass MOT without any problems. The safety regulations regarding cars are the same in every European country, Cars all have an EC type approval, same emission requirements etc..So please, be carefull and think before you call something a scam, illegal etc..
22 July 2011, 3:52 pmIf you have a good HHO system you can save lot’s of money, unfortunately there are also some bad systems that run on 60A or more, these systems cannot work because they use far too much energy. I think the discussion should be which systems works and which don’t. It’s like with every product, there are good products and bad products.
Jon:
Hi Lars,
22 July 2011, 6:57 pmI agree that folks at NASA are not stupid, the problem is that they have never tested HHO so they don’t have an opinion on it, it is just another silly myth that you guys like to throw about. Please, show me the NASA HHO test, because it does not exist.
What makes one HHO system work and another not work, they all do the same thing, so why can one be a good system and another be a bad one? And no one said HHO was illegal. Effi’s are illegal, but not HHO.
And Lars, please provide a real email address next time….
Lars:
The NASA report is on the website of [company name removed but click for document]. Regarding good and bad systems: There is a difference in size and quality of plates and also the # of plates is important. There are even people offering steel plates. Pls. do your homework before you make a statement. Don’t compare apples with pears. About my email address: I thought this would not be published, so.. how do you know if my email address is real or not, why do you care?
23 July 2011, 8:54 amJon:
Ha ha! That NASA report?! This one from 1977 that is discussed in this very thread and has only a very tenuous connection with what we are talking about! And you say it is me comparing apples with pears?! Is that the best you can do for evidence that your system works! Mate, there are several much more recent peer reviewed university studies out there, you can find most of them on this website if you look. These studies, like the NASA report, are also vaguely vaguely relevant to HHO but when you look properly it turns out that they about hydrogen as a combustion enhancer, the gas is coming from an external source, the is no additional load on the engine due to the electrolysis and only a tiny improvement in efficiency.
23 July 2011, 5:30 pmAs for your email: I can tell it is fake because all emails sent to it bounce back. I care because I like to know who is posting to my website.
Shiloh:
Question for you Jon. Am I wrong to assume that based on what you have said on this blog you only except something to be true if it can be proofed by science. That anything, even though it exists, that cannot be proofed by science that it exists is unacceptable to you. Question for you, can science proof the existence of thoughts? Can science proof that man has a soul? Where did the energy come from for the BIG bang theory? As you have said energy in = energy out ????
28 July 2011, 7:11 pmJon:
Shiloh, what are you talking about? Of course something can be true even though science has not proven it to be so, that is what science is all about! Discovering truths and adjusting theories as to what is “true” as new evidence comes to light. This is the opposite of what HHO proponents do, they have a made-up-theory based on no evidence and they try to fit / reject science (that they don’t understand) depending on whether it agrees / disagrees with their made-up-theory.
Can science proof [sic] that [a] man has a soul?
- You will have to define what a soul is first. What has this got to do with HHO?
Can science proof [sic] the existence of thoughts?
- Does it need to? This is more a philosophy question than a science question.
Where did the energy come from for the BIG bang theory? As you have said energy in = energy out ?
- You are confusing classical physics with quantum physics. This is a VERY common mistake. Current big bang theories point towards that there was no “before the big bang”, the energy did not “come from” anywhere, at the instant of the big bang there was only energy. If this is difficult to grasp then don’t worry, it is very difficult to grasp, people much cleverer that I go to university for decades to get their head around it.
Now remind me what this has to do with someone putting a vehicle fitted with HHO through a blinded and properly controlled test? This has nothing to do with the existence of a soul or quantum physics. It is very simple science, so why does no one ever do it? I think you know the answer… It is because it is not true.
28 July 2011, 7:31 pmShiloh:
Well nothing and everything. First of all it is by chance that I came upon this blog. What caught my attention was the thought pattern/perceptions/assumptions displayed in each comment.Quantum physics proved that the outcome of an experiment is influenced by the observer’s expectations of the outcome. So I am not taking any stance for or against HHO. According to quantum physics both sides can be RIGHT !!!!! and have proof for their opinion. On the big bang theory: for me the “energy” at the instance of the big bang is the CREATOR !!!! So classical physics needed quantum physics to explain what it is not able or not willing to except as possible? I’m not learned or smart enough in worldly terms to debate HHO etc. but I know this much – quantum physics is proving more and more the teachings of my CREATOR. Forgive me for the interruption/distraction of your debate.
28 July 2011, 8:26 pmAdam:
I am not a scientist, but I have been driving for over 25 years. Thanks to rising fuel costs and the current recession, I drive as sensibly + economically as I can.
I KNOW that when I put £5 of petrol in my car and drive locally at 15 to 30 mph, I get 15 miles before the orange light comes on. (This is all thanks to road humps, which also damage car batteries, increase pollution due to constant decelaration / acceleration and increase emergency vehice times by 3 seconds per hump). I also KNOW that if I put £5 of petrol in and drive on a motorway at 60mph I get 40 miles before the orange light comes on.
Conclusion : You do NOT need a ‘closed’ test to know when your mileage improves! 25 years of economical driving experience is all the proof I need.
(ps I don’t have a hydrogen cell.I am just an interested driver, wanting to find out if they work)
Many ‘official’ tests by govt bodies are there purely to ‘prove’ things that are in the govt’s interest. They take about £9 in tax from every £10 you pay at a pump… why would they want anyone to save fuel?
HIstorically scientists’ laws and theories are proven wrong… The world is flat, if a human travels at over 30 mph they will die, the earth is the centre of the universe…
If Darwin was right, why is his study of evolution still a THEORY, and why are there monkeys AND men on the earth at the same time?
So-called scientific ‘LAWS’ are being ‘broken’ all the time. One of our greatest achievements is that, as humans, we constantly challenge what we perceive to be ‘true’.
If Jon believes hho doesn’t work, then why won’t he take Richard up on his 30 day money-back guarantee? He’s apparently a scientist working for a solar panel company, so probably has the initial outlay to hand, and if it doesn’t work then he gets his money back! He started this blog to disprove Hydrotechnix system, so why doesn’t he prove once and for all that it is a scam by trying it on his own car (he said he has a car) in his own ‘closed’ test?
Who looks the most like a snake oil peddlar now? Jon, until he tests it and PROVES with irrefutable evidence that it DOESN’T work.
I’m not on anyone’s side. I just don’t listen to anyone who hasn’t got proof on EITHER side.
11 August 2011, 11:08 pmJon:
Hi Adam,
11 August 2011, 11:21 pmThat is, by far, the funniest comment I have ever had on any of my blogs. Thank you.
Do you actually want answers to any of your questions? I honestly suspect not since most of them have been answered before in this blog post, several times in fact, and I have never met a creationist that has any interest in why they are so very wrong. The others can be answered with a quick Google and an elementary school science lesson.
Adam:
Do you think I’m a creationist? A creationist is someone who believes the words of the book of genesis. I don’t.
My questions…
“Why would the govt want people to save fuel (if they’re making £9 out of every £10 spent on it)” is what’s known as a rhetorical question. Everyone knows the answer, so no-one has to answer.
The Darwin THEORY is still just a theory. There’s actually evidence to support the claim, but science has proven that it can be done just by triggering dna INSTANTLY at any point in time, rather than evolving over millions of years. Crocodiles and house flies haven’t changed in millions of years, so where’s Darwin’s thoughts (theories) on that?
Why won’t Jon try Richard’s product? Because if he did and he was proved wrong, this blog would be pointless, the govt(s) would lose billions of £’s and $’s and we wouldn’t need a carbon tax. If I had the money, I’d try it, so why doesn’t he? What is he afraid of? When it comes down to it, to the most basic human emotion of survival, it’s fear that keeps us alive and also makes us destroy (physically or in blogs) that which we are afraid of (or don’t understand).
12 August 2011, 12:32 amAdam:
As for not being able to get out more than you put in…
12 August 2011, 12:38 amNext time you get to a hill on your bike, don’t pedal on the way down. A magical force (that can’t exist in your world) will give you downwards momentum without you havig to do a single thing except steer.
Adam:
While we’re on that subject, how can hang-gliders and birds go UP just using thermals? What energy are they putting into the process?
12 August 2011, 12:40 amAdam:
I must add that I don’t know the answer to the last few questions. I’m just curious to hear from the scientits here.
12 August 2011, 12:43 amJon:
Adam,
I assume you are a creationist because your comments about Darwin and humans and monkeys are identical to the arguments (based on complete ignorance of the topic) used be creationists. They are completely irrelevant here anyway. If you want to know the difference between a theory and a theory (it has more than one definition) or why monkeys and humans coexist then I recommend Google.
Since you have the answers to your questions right in front of your face it is clear to me that your ignorance is deliberate. I’m really bored of responding to the same straw man arguments over and over again.
If you have something relevant and new to contribute to my blog post about Richard’s false claims on his bullshit product then please post them here.
12 August 2011, 12:48 amAdam:
Ah – ‘assume’. That word has made many people look like idiots. Regarding my comments on Darwin’s THEORY, it was to merely to demonstrate that not everything we are told should be believed. You have to admit that this very blog is based on that fact. I’m still awaiting answers to my questions, so I’m only deliberately ignorant until I hear a valid and proveable reply.
Gravity gives momentum with no extra input. Thermals give lift with no extra input. You said “Of course something can be true even though science has not proven it to be so” so why don’t you believe your own words?
The question everyone wants to ask is “Why are you so against a theoretical improvement in fuel econmoy” when you ride a bike? We all await your answer…
That link you sent me on ‘theories’says A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Like I said, modern day science has disproven his theory but you can’t alter the text of a published book.
We should be a double act. You the stoic, straight guy and me the clever, funny one. I bet there are tons of people reading this blog that are enjoying the banter
Forget your anti-invention ways! Let’s start a comedy act x
12 August 2011, 1:04 amJon:
You think you are the clever funny one? Are you narcissistic, per chance? This blog does attract a lot of NPD sufferers.
You don’t understand the the energy propelling me down the hill under gravity is the same energy that I put into climbing the hill? You don’t understand that the energy causing thermals is energy coming from the sun heating the ground? You think there is such a thing as free energy, energy that has no origin. This is such a basic concept that is is very obvious that you have no understanding of any basic science… and yet you think you are qualified to have this conversation with me?
Yes a theory can be disproved, but evolution is not an example of a disproved theory. HHO is not a theory and therefore cannot be disproved either. You have no point.
12 August 2011, 1:32 amAdam:
Jon, Maybe you should approve all of the comments before you reply, otherwise people won’t know what you’re replying to. (And you wonder why I’m the clever one!)
Here we go…
Deepending on your altitude, you don’t actually have to cycle as far up a hill as you do down. The earth is spherical, not flat…
The thermal energy is coming from the sun, which re-inforces my fact that the hang-gliders and birds can just use it…I see no engines, yet geese can fly at up to 200mph for thousands of miles using a natural, non-input needing phenomenon called a jet stream. Discuss.
Blogs don’t require qualifications. You started it, so you should see it through, whether you’re right or wrong. I’m still looking forward to finding out who wins!
Once again, my point mentioning evolution is that theories, whether regarded as fact or not, can be disproved. You don’t believe that a hydrogen-enhanced engine will produce more power and more mpg than a standard, unefficient petrol / diesel engine, but you also can’t disprove it.
On a larger scale, how many people believe that a super-being created everything, though you can’t actually see, feel, hear, touch, photograph or prove that this being exists?
If such a being was truly that all-powerful, then no-one would need convincing. We would all just know.
You ‘think’ that an hho engine won’t work because that’s what you’ve been taught to believe.
If everyone believed what they were taught, then the human race wouldn’t progress very far!
12 August 2011, 2:06 amAdam:
Jon – iagine you’re born at home, on a hill. On your 18th birthday you get a bike.
14 August 2011, 2:52 pmYou let gravity pull you (and your bike!) down the hill and find a job. You buy your mum and dad a new house at the bottom of the hill.
Therefore you have NOT used the same or more force travelling up the hill…
Explain that!
Adam:
*imagine*
14 August 2011, 2:53 pmAdam:
And before you go on about energy used to get the bike to the house, it was made by your dad from scrap parts in the garden.
14 August 2011, 2:57 pmIf you can’t get your head around that, replace ‘bike’ with go-kart. Again, made from scrap laying about on top of the hill.
Once assembled, there’s nothing energy-wise connecting the YOU and the bike or kart’s downward journey to any upward force YOU supply.
James:
Jon ……….. Your a MORON ! A mechanic by trade and life , ive used HHO in a few ways to find what works or not for some time now . Let me say it can go negative but i have gotten 41 percent increase without altering the cars systems AND NO electrolytes ! Ive also found at 70 mph i can shut the fuel system off (cut power to the electric pump) and still drive my car on HHO alone ! I drove 2 hours and 45 mins. on 1 gal. of gas in my 2000 Chevy cavalier 2.2 liter automatic . SO BULLSHIT TO YOU ……… When i have the time i have been working on a 1996 Cavalier to completely start and run on HHO . By the way i have proof and witness’s .
22 August 2011, 11:43 pmJon:
Bull. Shit.
23 August 2011, 1:29 amJames:
As you wish . But its your ignorance that brings about your loss .
24 August 2011, 9:26 pmJames:
By the way i’m not trying to sell anyone anything ! I drive from Georgia to Arkansas twice a month to pick up my son for visitation and i spend between $210 to $270 in one weekend on fuel without any assist, yet with HHO that has dropped to $115 to $190 in cost. Yes it depends on driving conditions such as how fast i wish to get there, or the flow of traffic. My tank holds 15.1 gallons of gas, and on average without HHO the car gets 27.7 miles per gallon, verses 39.7 miles a gallon with HHO. My last trip without HHO i got 345 miles on a tank and ran an average of 84 miles an hour on cruise, my last trip with HHO i got 485 miles on that tank also on cruise at 84 miles an hour. The only differences are while im on I-20 thru construction. Which happens to be the same both ways all the time!
24 August 2011, 10:36 pmWhen i discovered it would run on only HHO i was driving on flat interstate and had been playing with efie’s and other things but wanted to try to eliminate the use of gasoline so in my car to do that i put a junction between my fuel pump relay and the pump, a switch inside with a voltmeter to the pump side(to verify voltage or lack of), as i drove down the road i would cut off the pump, and after altering MY HHO setup was able to run on HHO at 70 miles an hour for periods of time. Not to say when i went up hill or needed to pass i did need to turn on the fuel pump! As long as i stayed around 70 or so and level or downhill my car runs fine, under load it chugs and needs fuel! I have tried electrolytes, and different setups but i have found what works for my conditions and now do not use anything that alters my cars computer or systems and NO electrolytes!
As far as credibility, my family and my customers are keeping tabs on this and have taken skeptical people for the tour(drive). ASE certified techs with Ford, GM, Nissan have seen my progress. Anyone can lie, con, bullshit, pull the wool, but i have nothing to sell. When my other project is finished and i have accomplished what i have sought out to do i will follow thru with a marketing target! But for now its a test ground that shows great potential.
Jon:
James, I don’t know what to say. That has to be one of the most stupid posts to this website so far, and they take some beating. You are saying that your car can cruise at 70mph on flat ground with no fuel source. In fact you are saying that it can do it with a negative fuel source (sine your HHO is consuming much more energy that it is supplying). To follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, why not turn the engine off all together? That way, since your HHO is now not consuming any energy, you should be able to accelerate to infinity-mph with the engine switched off! Can you see how much seance you are making? I suspect not.
24 August 2011, 10:57 pmJames:
As i said your A MORON . My use of your post was a waist as is you.
25 August 2011, 8:14 amJon:
A “waist”? LOL. Yup, that is me. A moron and a waist. Well at least i know about conservation of energy, thermodynamics. I suggest you google that and start reading, better than “waisting” your time on here.
25 August 2011, 4:37 pmJ Drury:
All these sceptics make me sick. I am of the opinion that just becasue they did not think of it first they try to condemn a new ides. Have they never read the fuel system used during the Second World War? Or do they not beleive there was a war? I used to drive a large 4 cylinder Austin staff car which was fitted with the Browns Gas system, it was terrific, no breakdowns and was reported to cover over 48.3 miles to the gallon. Today, I have a Rover 414S. I have no CAT fitted and the car passes the MOT emission test every year. I average 66.8MPG and change the oil once every two years, The engine runs as sweet as if it was new. Anyone who is considering an HHO Kit would do well to take no notice of these scetics and find those who have run on HHO for the past 10 years. I wonder if the sceptics are piad by Shell or BP to condemn new idea in motorins???
5 September 2011, 11:35 amJon:
All you anti-science people make me sick. Making connections and correlations where they don’t exists. Still, it must be very comforting to live in a world full of magic and fairies. Still, when sitting behind a computer it must be hard to justify how that came about by magic and not science… morons.
6 September 2011, 5:55 pmJames:
Tell you what JON……….. You fly your happy little scientific ass to Georgia on your dime and I’ll prove to YOU what you so easily put down! If i cant prove it beyond anyone’s reasonable doubt I’ll put your dumb ass on first class back home ! Put up or shut up ……….
6 September 2011, 11:30 pmJon:
James, why do I need to come to Georgia? Why can’t you prove it without my being there? What do you need me for? Good science is independent of who carried out the test. This is exactly your problem, you are carrying out your test with no controls, remove you from your test and the effect will disappear with you.
6 September 2011, 11:45 pmJames:
So remove you and we remove (or) you remove our problem !!!!! Correct ? I’m not anti-science, I love science but you cant be so narrow minded as not to see what does work when you yourself obviously haven’t tried it ! Don’t run on thin ice for you may go swimming. Yet walk slow and steady on that same ice and you may get across dry. Break down whatever you want however you want and you will almost always find a variable no matter how small . Science is yet to be accurate beyond a doubt, just highly played THEORY. I give credit only where it is due. I wont knock anything until its proven otherwise, some things are a no brainer for sure ! I do highly take pride in my work, and would not praise something that does not deserve it. I put forth great effort in detail and craftsmanship when i do anything which is why everything takes me a long time. Say all you wish………… but i first learned about hho less than a year ago and after studying all i could find on it night and day, day and night (no joke) i started to work with it off of two peoples workings, Stan Meyers and the Australian guy that disappeared (looked at everyone else’s). Stan had the right idea but made a lot of nonsense of very simple things. Basically with my own setup and my extensive knowledge of cars that i dont think he had, I’ve made a car produce the fuel to self sustain it under a light load for highway driving. Needless to say as i work towards my other project my intention is to have a devoted system that needs little maintenance and requires no more than it takes to fill up as we do now with gas, however only with straight tap water ! No high maintenance, only a minor modification to the the mechanicals and the replacement fuel system. Before you batter me with your criticism PROVE me wrong !!!! By the way if I were not in the test whom do you recommend ? Would you like me to turn my work over to you for testing ?? NOT………. Just reading over the past posts …………Mr Scientist , Tell me what and why many reports of burning water were about ! Hundreds of years ago after lightning strikes on lakes or bodys of water there would be reported FIRE ON THE WATER . I’m no scientist, but you put high voltage or lightning and ground it thru a shallow of water and you get hho naturally burning. Its everywhere, its a part of everything around us and is highly concentrated in liquid form. You can get hho out of ANY natural liquid (some more difficult than others). Water is the most plentiful and the cleaner the better. YOUR theory – you have to put more in than you get out ( i want to see the size of the mouse thats in the center of our planet turning us ! ) OH wait thats magnetism and gravity of the solar system, couldnt possibly be free energy !!! OH and the Testatika machine must also be a farce !
8 September 2011, 8:52 amI only have one truly relevant question to end here …………This blog is to discredit an HHO unit that you yourself have never bought nor tested nor owned nor ever seen in real life , did I myself miss something here ??????????
Correction ……..Thestatika machine in Methernitha Switzerland.
The Methernithans realize that to the educated physicist, their machine may seem impossible or even crazy. But they point out that, “A trained specialist should remain free and independent in his thinking, and should avoid being limited by the temporal framework of publicly admitted knowledge in any science. It has to be remembered that the established science has already been forced many times to change or give up some of its most fundamental concepts.”
Jon:
James,
8 September 2011, 6:12 pmI am really bored of narcissistic rambling irrelevant rants by incoherent rabid anit-science loons who like to quote garbage written buy a cult who’s leader was locked up for child abuse.
You have no clue what science even is, that is very clear from what little of your response I can be bothered to read. I have much better things to do than respond to each of your weird sidetracks and misconceptions. Stick to the subject, does HHO save any fuel?
Science is by definition “open minded”, it has to be. It is extremely difficult for science to prove a negative, and yet it should be very easy for it to prove a positive with regard to HHO. So why is there exactly zero evidence indicating that may HHO work? That is as easy one, because HHO almost certainly does not work.
Science is a method of separating what is true from what is not true. It puts men on the moon, it extends your life by decades, it shows how we got to be here, it makes the computer you are looking at right now display what I typed on the other side of the planet. Science is the best tool we have for separating fact from fantasy.
If this is a subject you are interested in, and I seriously doubt it is, I’d suggest you stop trolling my blog and start learning what science actually is, how it works, what it can do and what it cannot do. However I suspect that you are much more interested in parroting every anti-science misconception you can find in an arse-backwards attempt to show that you, the willingly uneducated, know more than those elitist people who went to collage for years and who actually do know what they are talking about.
James:
Full of yourself and full of shit to boot. Well college boy as you so open mindlessly responded to everything, i have you an experiment ! Want to play with the very thing you say dont or cant work ??
12 September 2011, 8:16 amGo to your local pet shop, buy 2 stainless water dishes. Go to the hardware store get enough FIBER mesh screen (not aluminum) to cover the water dish. If your handy with simple tools, soilder 12 gauge stainless wire to each dish separately, cut the mesh to fit between the 2 dishes so as they dont touch, then force the 2 together and tape with waterproof tape. OH use your sink with the door CLOSED ! Fill the sink with water, you’ll need a universal charger so you can choose 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0 volts or go to 12. Attach one wire of each to the dishes and put in the water, plug it in! Give it about an hour or maybe several, then light a match or lighter, YOU’LL get to see just how well HHO works my friend …………….
I truly hope your not as stupid as you seem, or if you are then you’ll blow yourself up !!!!!
It seems as if everyone is trying to find FREE energy. There is no such thing as for as we are concerned! However look at it this way. Gasoline burns just fine in a car as well as diesel. But what does it take to get this fuel ?? How much cost, energy, time, and other resources does it take ? On the other hand, what does it take to make HHO on-board your car as a fuel supplement or a replacement.
Just because you yourself havent seen it work or its not mainstream mass sold or backed by sciences ever so perfect foundation, you should seriously try it first…………………..
Not that i’m trying to make you look like a hypocrite, but you’ll find you’ve been singing the wrong tune.
Take care.
Jon:
Yea, I did electrolysis experiments when I was a kid. What has this got to do with anything? Nothing, that is what. I am so bored of explaining this over and over again, but here goes…
12 September 2011, 8:29 pmIt takes energy to separate water into H & O. More energy than is in the H & O. This is a requirement of the universe, that you cannot get out more energy than you put in. In fact you can never break even. This is so elementary, I just cannot understand why you people don’t get it. Look up conservation of energy and then come back to me about why your HHO thing is an exception.
Pete:
I’m sensing a little negativity here people!
26 September 2011, 8:49 pmjulian:
If confirmed that subatomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, thus blowing Einstein’s theory of relativity out of the water, what implications are there on the laws of thermodynamics when the special relativity theory and the 1st law of thermodynamics are mathematically linked?
Must confess, not my area of expertise, but very interesting all the same!
Jon, you are a guy that is keeping people like Richard Bird held to account and that in my book is spot on and a good thing. But these folks from all over the globe that has an HHO system installed in their vehicles and claim that they are saving hard earned cash all can’t be wrong. People have paid hundreds of pounds to have one of these systems installed, if this is a scam or just a load of old bull, then it won’t take long for irate customers to make BIG complaint’s to the highest level and we will all know about it?
Its either going one way or another this; I am personally 70% pro HHO and 30% unsure. I think that the events at the CERN clearly have many people a lot cleverer than you and I scratching their heads knowing that what they have believed in is flawed. Food for thought ay Jon?
3 October 2011, 7:11 pmJon:
No one really thinks that those neutrinos did pass the speed of light, they are looking for the fault in the experiment. The midea have reported it quite differently, but t hen they are in the entertainment industry and presenting the science is just too dull. Your point is that science can be wrong but that is not really true, science is about evaluating the evidence and coming up with theories as to how the universe works, as new evidence comes along theories are adjusted. Now for HHO there is no evidence, just a massive pile of anecdotes. You say that all these folks who say it wonks can’t be wrong, I say of course they can! Millions of people also believe in, for example, homeopathy and swear that it works, but it doesn’t. People fool themselves all the time, especially people who have an interest in fooling themselves (those who have invested hundreds of pounds in their hope that HHO saves fuel, or that have invested thousands in an HHO business, are great examples). Science is good at separating what is true from what we would like to be true. Experiments are designed to remove the human from the experiment and with HHO, as with homeopathy, the effect disappears as soon as the human can’t influence the result. HHO makers make up a million excuses as to why they don’t need to prove their product works because every single time they have in the past it has been shown not to work. Just like the homeopathy you can buy in the health food shop and the drug store, HHO does not work.
3 October 2011, 8:24 pmjulian:
Jon, it’s not the media that are sensationalising the story. The details have been released from Opera themselves through press release and press invitations and they clearly detail the results from their experiments from the horse’s mouth. Its protocol to invite the scientific community to put the results under scrutiny.
“Warp Speed Doctor Spock” / ”HHO” Fact or fiction. No need to comment Jon, I know what you will say. Bloody interesting though.
4 October 2011, 8:30 pmJon:
Here are some examples of why the neutrinos probably did not travel faster than C.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/04/more-evidence-against-faster-than-light-neutrinos/
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40408
http://www.themuse.ca/articles/47858
Its relevance to HHO? None whatsoever.
4 October 2011, 9:26 pmPaul:
Jon!!! Not John, by the way, but JonJonJon. I want to help you to in this difficult discussion. HHO doesnt work, HHo doesnt work, HHO doesnt work, HHO doesnt work ( and so on for 1 million times ) Thats very helpful and scientifically proven. And one million times more and one million times more. Very scientific approach. Go on Jon, repeat and repeat and repeat, that helps. HHO doesnt work, nobel prize for Jon. By the way why not John? Explain this scientifically.
7 October 2011, 11:28 amJames:
THEORY ……………………………………. You said it YOURSELF Jon ! Science is a theory. My theory is your STILL a moron. I dont have to prove it, its a theory but most likely so, you must disprove it. I see how easy this is now. Wow, relativity sure does work nicely.
12 October 2011, 7:58 amJon:
I never said science is a theory. Science is not a theory. The use of “theory” in science is quite different to the common use of the word, you should look it up rather than posting bullshit on my website while drunk at 2am. The scientific method puts food on your plate, makes your computer work, puts satellites in space, keeps you alive through medicine…. if you want to say “science is just a theory” then you should reject all of it, no picking and choosing. So I guess we won’t be seeing you on here any more, seeing as you reject science and all, as your computer and the Internet are not things you believe in. See ya.
12 October 2011, 5:43 pmKen:
Jon, I’m glad you’re not a teacher. I’d never send my kids to your school. A chip on your shoulder is a mild way of describing you. Your life’s work – to debunk proven science with drummed up verbiage and calling it science does not contribute to anything useful.
15 October 2011, 12:37 amGive it a break and find a useful pastime.
Have you ever been the creator of anything worthwhile?
Jon:
Ken,
15 October 2011, 3:36 amAd homonym is my favorite logical fallacy, well done there.
How do you know that I am not a teacher? Maybe I am one of your kids teachers?
Please point to one bit of proven science I am trying to debunk, I know you can’t.
I’d point to this blog as just one worthwhile thing I have created – through it I have put several companies selling scams out of business, called out hundreds of con men, embarrassed several not-at-all-diligent universities and academics and saved countless strangers thousands of pounds… and I have had a lot of fun pointing out how stupid people like you are for taking a ill-advised pop at me.
Colin:
How HHO works in a internal combustion engine:
19 October 2011, 3:13 amThe internal combustion engine is only around 25% fuel efficient.
The HHO introduced to the engine is used as an accellerant.
Hydrogen burns 1000′s of times faster than petrol so when HHO is introduced in small amounts into the combustion chamber of an engine it helps to burn the fuel faster (better flame path) more evenly and cleaner, producing more power. It is the equivalent of having several spark plugs in the combustion chamber. Some engine manufacturers already use 2 spark plugs in the combustion camber (BMW, Alfa Romeo, Kawasaki) but it is impractical to have more spark plugs due to inlet & exhaust ports, cam shafts etc.
So we aren’t getting something for nothing, HHO is introduced to help burn the fuel we already have more efficiently.
The laws of thermodynamics intact.
James:
I’d bet you hide in your own little head with YOUR reality and are to scared to be a part of society and use HHO to find its true worth. Your just a blow hard that hides on a computer screen. I see your pass-time as putting down others because of your own insecurity or fears. You should get a psychologist. HHO will not haunt you just those you’ve pissed off !
19 October 2011, 8:01 pmJames:
By the way I dont drink, smoke or use anything so 2 a.m. is usually when i’m finished working. My pass-time is work.
19 October 2011, 8:06 pmJon:
James, More ad homonyms, my favorite logical fallacy, well done there. You got anything RELEVENT to say?
19 October 2011, 8:08 pmJon:
Colin,
19 October 2011, 8:14 pmI have never heard this before. No, wait… I have. This is it is not true that an ICE is only 25% fuel efficient, more like 99% or more. You are not getting something for nothing, in fact you are getting nothing for something, laws of thermodynamics intact.
James:
Jon, why do you wake up on a daily basis? The question is not meant to be read into, no hidden thought.
19 October 2011, 10:58 pmJon:
James,
19 October 2011, 11:33 pmhow is that question relevant to anything? What are you trying to say? You see, taken literally or metaphorically it makes no sense.
I do wonder if any of you would be interested in investing in my Butter Company, you all seem first rate at assessing such things, we welcome investment from folks like you – http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/685
Emma:
James – Regardless of the effectiveness of HHO (which is scientifically foolish), I feel you would benefit greatly from a course in general grammar. Particularly to the various situations where one should use ‘your’ and ‘you’re’.
19 October 2011, 11:49 pmsteve:
2008 Peugeot Bipper 1.4 HDI, before HHO cell fitted 42 MPG. After cell fitted 57 MPG
21 October 2011, 2:30 am2003 Ford Mondeo 1.8 lx, Before 31 MPG After 38 MPG.
Does it work ? YES……Do I care if no one believes me? NO….
Both engines run much smoother and quieter. In fact, the Mondeo can barely be heard.
Emmisions on Mondeo at MOT test, CO reading was 0%. Yes, ZERO HC parts per mill., were down from 70 last year to 22 this year. Got the print outs to prove it.
Truth is, its taken a lot of fiddling to get these results but I’ve learnt a lot and now understand what needs doing and why. No one ever said it was easy, just possible.
Jon:
What kind of fiddling did it take to get it working? Why did it not work straight away?
21 October 2011, 10:12 pmJon:
Fuel efficient, yes about that. 99% or more of the fuel is burned in a modern ICE. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.
21 October 2011, 10:13 pmsteve:
Its down to ecu control and producing enough gas.
22 October 2011, 10:37 amProbably why the Yanks get better results. Their engines are cruder.
I want to get hold of an old carb fed engine. Far easier to lean back the fuel mix. If you were to design an engine to run with HHO from the start and sort the electronics to suit, I’m in no doubt it would be very fuel efficient and clean.
You can raise the compression ratio coz HHO raises the octane rating.
Also the ignition timing can be retarded coz of the much faster flame front with HHO.
The main problems with modern engines is retarding the ignition and over coming the Lambda sensors. With HHO introduced, the Lambda’s detect extra Oxygen and enrich the fuel mix to compensate. That’s why some people report worse MPG.
You must sort the Lambda’s and, for best results retard the ignition timing.
BUT it will reduce emissions by just burning HHO without any other changes.
That alone would save all this Cat converter and DPF rubbish.
A carb and HHO cell is the way forward. Heh Heh.
As for fuel efficiency of modern engines, I think people are confusing data.
Cars are about 35/ 40% fuel efficient. That is to say 35 / 40% of the fuel burnt actually propels the car forward. The other 60% is lost in heat, light, frictional losses etc. It still gets burnt.
Sort the electronics on a modern engine and it will work.
Hope this helps
Jon:
Steve,
22 October 2011, 12:39 pmSo sure running an engine lean will save you some fuel, but at a cost – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/697 – and it is illegal.
Is there any actual science behind the rest of your claims? Because it reads like a load of meaningless words designed to sound impressive to folks who don’t know anything about anything. Doers any of it actually mean anything?
Surely, what with emissions and economy being important to car makers everywhere, if HHO + lean running was helpful then it would be fitted as standard to every new car made?
Steve:
Jon,
23 October 2011, 3:52 amI’m not running the engine lean. Hydrogen in HHO is a fuel, so I reduce the petrol or Diesel induced proportionately.
In case you didn’t already know, all fossil fuels are Hydrocarbons.
The Hydrogen in a fossil fuel is what burns to give the BANG!!!!
The Carbon is the Black gummy stuff left behind on the valves and head and turn the oil balck coz it doesn’t burn easily.
So, NO, the engine does not run lean, just cleaner, cooler, quieter and with more fossil fueled MPG.
It’s clear to me that you have already made up your mind about HHO, but like I said in my first post, I don’t care what anyone else thinks. I was simply passing on info I had on the subject.
As for manufacturers using it, the oil companies would have a big say in that. Heard of Pogues (I think that’s right) . He invented a carb in the seventies that could get 200 mpg from a V8 yank engine. It used heater elements and fine capillary tubes to vapourize petrol before it entered the combustion chamber.
As you know, only a vapour will burn. If you didn’t know then light a candle and see how far the flame is from the wick. Or throw a match into Diesel, it will go out.
Anyway, the carb was destroyed by the oil compamies when they added Sulphur to fuel which blocked the carb up and it never went to market. Don’t take my word for it, research it yourself.
Here’s food for thought.
If the engine is running cooler with fossil fuel leaned off, which shouldn’t be the case according to the “experts”. How? Why?
Here’s how, the added HHO helps any fossil fuel burn faster and so less energy is wasted as heat, and as it is used to push the piston down like it’s supposed too, you use less fuel for the same torque.
A bit like heating a room with windows open and still feeling cold, then someone comes along and closes the windows. How radical!!
Nothing to do with free energy, just better use of the potential energy in fuel.
You will of course attack this info as you have every other post, but like I said I don’t care if you believe or not, it’s your loss.
I’m getting 35% better MPG from my diesel’s potential energy using this total scam and scientific impossibilty called HHO.
I’m beggining to realise how the Wright brothers must have felt.
“A flying machine. HA HA HA HA HA HA “
Jon:
Steve, that cannot be true, if it were true then you have broken the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These circular arguments get very boring… zzzzz….
26 October 2011, 6:50 pmJames:
Jon its not the arguments that are boring . You are. Someone else should have started this blog…………………….. Someone that’s not stuck on stupid !
31 October 2011, 8:20 amJon:
James,
31 October 2011, 8:36 amI’m boring you? I’m not forcing you to keep coming back here again and again to display your inability to make a reasoned, logical, rational, reality based, scientifically plausible argument… you do that all on your own. If returning to something so boring makes me appear stupid, in your eyes, then so be it. Like I’m bothered.
You have resorted to the logic of the school yard, you are trying to win an argument that you have already lost by trying to change the subject to something you know about – personal insults. You loose twice and get to look like a child at the same time. Good job.
You want to start your own exciting blog where fairies and homeopathy and HHO have a basis in reality then go right ahead, I promise not visit it to bore you there.
James:
You know Jon, i think i’ll let someone else bother with this. I seem to have made the mistake of following your lead in the school yard crap! All those who use or have used or will use any decent HHO kit will find out for them selves the truth. Good luck to them and yourself in your pursuit of whatever makes you happy. ALWAYS PURSUE YOUR OWN PATH, LET NOT YE BE LEAD.
2 November 2011, 6:46 amSteve:
Heard of a Geet Generator. These have been proven to provide up to 750 watts. That is about 1 horsepower.
Not free energy, but better use of the available energy.
It uses the heat generated by combustion to create electricty.
Fit one in a a car exhaust and run a HHO cell from that and you do indead have NO drain on the cars alternator but get HHO to burn.
Oh, by the way. Think you know reality from fiction, eh!
3 November 2011, 12:08 amI suggest you look up the Cestui Que Vie act of 1666.
You may just learn something about reality.
This is my last post here coz you clearly have your head to far up your arse to learn anything.
Peace be with you. XX
Jon:
No, I have no idea what a GEET generator is… nor how it is relevant. It does not use heat to make electricity.
3 November 2011, 7:23 amUsing heat to make electricity to run your HHO is an interesting idea, it would cost thousands and save maybe 1 or 2% in fuel. Maybe.
Cestui Que Vie? Again, relevance?
Clive L:
Guys
I don’t run a business or work on cars for a living i am a time served engineer since leaving school at 15 after completeing all my exams, i am not stupid or a muppet.
However i do know cars it’s my passion since my first dolomite sprint at 16
Also i do not like writing to these sites and giving my email address because you tend to catch nasty stuff hoever i feel compeled to say my bit.
No engine being produced on this plant that runs on fosil fuel is 100% efficient FACT that is why we have cats, recirculation valves and loads of add on’s etc they clean and fettle to reduce emmisions from the inefficient engines another FACT.
I have been running my cars on LPG for 10 years, my best friend and I have converted vehicles of all sorts from tractors to supercharged Jags and Mercs, and no issues because every one is a individual a specific converssion for each car and it works because it helps the engine become efficient or more efficient.
Now i have spent a whole year looking in to HHO i have spoken to experts, do’ers, talkers and walkers as well as following this blog.
The theory of HHO says it will work to burn the fuel quicker on the power stroke makes sence, less burn on the exhaust stroke equates to less resistance a more efficient engine. However i have come to the conclusion that it would be difficult to obtain the changes on newer engines because of all the emisions controls that interfear with the basic function of the engine. A prime example is the landrover V8 used in the P38. lucas engine managment the best around but for the sake of increasing the mpg they used a sagem unit to piggybank the lucas unit. The result was the engine runs on a knife edge and lean but not all engines are the same and so hundereds maybe thousands of engines were replaced by landrover at about 70K this is a FACT
Sorry for the long winded approch but i have to state the point, add’ons again.
Now i believe that HHo will work on certain engines if and only if the engine is in a good state of health an ethic i have always applied to lpg conversions.
Now take lpg when introduced to a diesel engine produces remarkable results it increases power and torque and improves mpg yes it does because you use your throttle less. It mixes with the air and diesel and burns all the diesel especially around the crown of the pistons and bores which is usually left behind i.e. black sooty exaust fumes thus making the engine more efficient yes it’s that word again.
Therefore if you produce HHo gas it should also workon the right car with a healthy engine. If it does not produce gas you will get steam, which is vapour injection used on dragsters to cool the charge another FACT just like when you drive in damp misty cool wether your engine will run more efficiently because you are adding moisture and oxygen another FACT so steam will do the same
So i think HHO will make a difference it’s all about the add’ons that will prevent the gas working.
So my conclusion is that i am going to put HHO on a car because i think it will work,
Jon i think you have a big bee in your bonnet about HHO you say “it can not work” Why? where is the proof ?
Some people on here are just sheep they don’t know cars i.e. engines but can see a quick buck. The measure of a conversion is when you get a problem and you resolve it and unfortunately i have only come accross a few people who can do this. The others are all back street mehcs or painters or tinkers who are on the wagon to make a buck sorry guys no offence i have spent loads of time sorting out the mess these people make simply because they don’t know.
Others on this site do know what they are talking about and jon you don’t seem to like that mate. If everyone just gave up because there was no proof we would all have blue eyes blond hair and speak german.Pproof only comes with time and development and usage sometimes 20 years worth.
Sorry jon i think you are wrong because on the right car with someone who is willing to resolve the issues and engineer fixes HHO will work but it is not a main stream fuel replacement it is for that band of men out there who have the strengh of charater and knowledge to make it work and maybe in the future it too will evolve and the proof will be there. It took jesus all his life and more to prove he was the son of god
6 November 2011, 12:16 amlastly excuse my english, spelling i know it’s not all good but it does not bother me, i don’t play email ping pong i have said my bit and that’s it if i have ofended you i do not care. some people say the truth hurts. some say the ones that squeal the loudest are hurt the most,
James:
My better half just reminded me of something very funny as one last comment……..
6 November 2011, 5:05 amIf HHO doesn’t work or cant work, then what in OUR car caused us to get 128 miles plus from 1 (one) gal. of gasoline while running MY HHO setup ????????
Keep in mind at periods of little to no load(flat road or downhill) on the car we were driving on pure HHO produced by the cars systems, WITH the gasoline fuel system disabled(voltage to the electric pump was turned off). As upcoming hills or load necessity’s were apparent the systems would be exchanged to compensate for the needed power. SO without gasoline to make the engine run, Jon, what scientific reason could you offer as to the 128 miles of travel in Georgia(USA) traffic and the varying road elevations? Be it when i change my setup to a large vehicle(99 Suburban) I lost that. But it was still very useful while on that vehicle. Typically as of last measurement my car was gaining 130 plus miles per tank of fuel savings over normal. I put over 3000 miles per month on one car!!
Don’t give me it cant it wont or its not logical. Tell me why it DOES happen!!!!
No more punches, to you or from you……………
Jon:
James,
6 November 2011, 5:38 amSo I think you are asking me how come your car achieves an MPG three times better than a Toyota Prius. The answer to that is very simple, it doesn’t. 128 MPG in any normal car is just silly. You are either mistaken or lying. It is not my job to prove why your car does not do what you say it does, no more that it is your job to prove to me that the moon is not made of cheese just because I say that it is.
Jon:
Clive,
6 November 2011, 5:49 amThanks for your essay. No one said that any engine is 100% efficient, that would violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics, just as HHO would if it worked. Catalytic converters catch the un-burned fuel exiting the engine and burn it there in a catalytic reaction, if there were anything more than a tiny amount of un-burned fuel exiting the engine then the catalytic converter would overheat very quickly and be destroyed. There are other inefficiencies in the engine too and some of these can indeed be improved with the addition of hydrogen into the combustion. However this is not due to the meaningless pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo your parrot. There is a maximum that this can help though, a couple of percent (less than one could measure outside of a science lab) and it is a lot less than the additional fuel burned that running an HHO generator off the engine would cause. For more information on this please read this – http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/737 – Unfortunatly I’m pretty sure that you won’t, you will do the equivelent of sticking your finges in your ears and shout “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you!” instead.
freddy mercury:
you chat utter shit mate, just an armchair critic,get a life,get a job and stop fucking people off!!!
6 November 2011, 5:33 pmJon:
Dear Freddy Mercury,
6 November 2011, 9:31 pmWhat exactly do I “chat utter shit mate” about? Are you calling me an “armchair critic” or yourself or what, you don’t specify? I have a fantastic life, thanks. And a job. And I don’t know what “fucking people off!!!” means so I don’t know how, or indeed if I want to, stop it. All in all I’d suggest you go back to school and learn some punctuation because without it people will have a very hard time trying to understand you.
james:
who ever did the installation did no know the technology there a several pices to the HHO puzzle and one should not judge prematurally. I install in a 2005 buick lacross and went from 18/32 stock to 23/43 after installation. I ran my car for afull year to test it ou and was very satisfied. so dont throw the baby out with the bathwater it is important that you communicate with the car computer or you will not get any results that are favorable
7 November 2011, 10:09 pmJames:
Jon you don’t comprehend very well. I wasn’t taking punches at you nor was I looking for one! I didn’t ask you to prove a damn thing, I asked you for a scientific explanation for what I have done, proven, and use. I’m not tinkering with a passive project or come and go ideal. I’m putting great effort into making HHO work as people would like it to. Instead of being the ASS that we all know you to be, why cant you be of assistance and not a hindrance. I’m a mechanic by trade and profession, not a doctor, not a scientist, not an astronaut. I know vehicles inside and out. I dissect then to resolve the problem instead of replacing various parts I rebuild them, professionally! I’m just as detailed with my work on HHO use in my cars! Doesn’t matter if you haven’t seen or don’t believe it. I’m not asking for help to build a fiction novel! I get a regular increase in mileage in normal use of HHO without having to constantly alter anything. But if I constantly monitor and make adjustments depending on load of my engine and increase and decrease HHO production as I drive I do get 3 to 4 times the mileage.
8 November 2011, 4:33 amAs I said I’m a mechanic. I’m not a computer programmer or manufacture. Since I can do what I have done, its possible for someone to build a possessor to accomplish what remains needed.
Currently HHO is like the wheel in the beginning, rough and heavy. So hows the ride on you bicycle lately? Fairly smooth, YES!
Jon:
Hi James,
8 November 2011, 5:29 amFirstly I apologise for my rudeness, I miss read the tone of your comment. Sorry about that. Most people on here are being very aggressive and not listening to me at all.
So, you are not going to like what I am going to say anyway. You must be mistaken about your mileage, it is just not possible to get 3 to 4 times the MPG from the same amount of fuel, modern engines are very good at extracting all the available energy from the fuel – if you were to make a saving it would be so small as to be un-measurable outside of a controlled environment.
But you are going to say that no matter what I say, you are experiencing it. I say you have to be mistaken, there is something else going on here, but without your full disclosure of your methodology and results I can’t help you find the answer. But who knows, it would not be very scientific of me to say there not some posibility that you are right and I am wrong – what I am really saying is that IMHO you are very likely mistaken.
You will need to prove, scientifically, in a lab with proper controls and error analyses and so on (and that is going to cost you money). Without this no one is going to take you seriously. Millbroke will charge you a few thousand pounds to let you know if you have something, universities may do it for less/free but then you will be falling into a trap that several folks like yourself have – they get some undergraduates to do a poor job of the experiment and you get false hope only to be shot down later by the profesors. Search this blog for “university” to see some of them.
As for who can help you build a control system, I don’t know. Not me, but t here are people out there who do this kind of thing. It is not a complicated – it probably won’t need a computer, just some electronics. Nerdy kids? Electronics forums on the internet? I don’t know.
Good luck, Jon.
Z5:
My god ….. I believe Jon lives in De Nile.
But whether it be HHO or “something else going on here”… SOMETHING is getting better MPGS and Lowered emissions.
FACT Up to 80% of fuel is used to cool your valves as they are open during the ignition cycle. It is not all “combusted”
FACT LPG burns out valves because of a very small liquid content without any additional cooling from HHO or Water injection or an additional fuel source.
FACT Water injection can allow for leaner fuel mix, higher compressions ratio or higher turbo boost pressure due to its cooling effect. Higher compression and higher boost pressure can make an engine run lean creating a hotter burn that can melt pistons and valves without suitable increased fuel cooling effect.
FACT HHO can convert back into water when compressed. This creates a cooling effect and steam expansion as well as increased combustion due to its hydrogen content.
FACT HHO cannot be a perpetual motion device if combined with a primary fuel source. It is a supplemental fuel that is increasing combustion efficiency.
Kind regards
10 November 2011, 6:04 pmJon:
FACT – not one of your “facts” is true, you made them all up, you cannot cite one single scientific resource to back up your “facts”.
10 November 2011, 7:59 pmI’d guess that you have NPD.
Additionally your website is hysterical, “peer review” is not having your mate take a look at it you know?!
Jon:
Z5,
11 November 2011, 1:19 pmBoring… Trolling my site will get you no where…
FACT – you cannot cite anything that backs up any of your “facts”. Nothing. Nowhere. Not at all.
Your “facts” are all bullshit you just made up, aren’t they?
Trisha:
Jon, I have spent much time reading through this thread, and in the begining i did think that we would do well to stay clear from Micheal Bird and HHO, but as i continue to read through it i find your responses to genuine queries and comments quite childish. The fact that you; on a number of cases; cite wikipedia as your source of knowledge speaks for itself. I do not dispute your arguements, perhaps the idea is as yet unproven, but i think by the end of your ‘discussions’ i would be more inclined to take micheal up on the offer of his 30 money back offer and try the system, than slate him based on your arguement of ‘it wont work because i said so!’
27 November 2011, 12:42 pmJon:
Hi Trisha,
30 November 2011, 3:58 amNowhere on my site to I cite Wikipedia. I may refer to it for definitions or further reading but I would never cite it. It is telling, in fact, that I can’t cite anything with regard to HHO. That is because there is nothing to cite, no one has ever done a scientific study into it because it is obviously silly. That said, there have been many times when HHO systems have been tested in a controlled scientific way and on every single one of these tests there has either been shown no improvement or a decrease in MPG (ie it made things worse). There is no point in me testing any HHO machine, as I have explained many many many times. The 30 day money back grantee is not necessary as you have this as a statutory right anyway, it is actually an ages old tool of the con man to get you hooked in and parted with your money. ‘It wont work because i said so!’ is actually a straw man argument (I never said that), and I don’t respond to those.
Trish, I don’t pretend to be a great writer or not to respond childishly when abused by shitheads. You are actually missing the point here… there is no proof whatsoever that this “technology” works and a significant amount that it does not. Why do these companies think they are exempt from having to demonstrate that the product they sell does what they say it does? I’ll tell you why, because it does not do it, it is a scam, and they know it.
BEEN THERE WORN THE T SHIRT:
Hi this is gettin back to the root of the problem im thick and have lost money i cant afford to a silver tounged charmer dicky bird.
3 December 2011, 11:35 pmAll who think and dream of this as a money earner just forget it and move on. The only thing i got of dicky bird that made any money was a trip to the local tab shop in malaga for some duty frees which i flogged to pay back the waste of money i paid for his training course.
Oh and some Aldi cheese sandwiches, nice!
James 23:
A fascinating thread, with many interesting viewpoints. I only wonder how many of the ‘against’ party have an active interest in the continuation of the current oil industry (such as Carnot)?
I am no expert on HHO although I have 30+ years experience in the mechanical and electrical engineering fields.
A year or so ago, I had installed, an Hydrotechnix fuel cell and I freely admit that it seemed unlikely that it would help my old van (600,000 km’s) but I was up for a gamble.
First off, my emissions were tested prior to the install and came back -at best- 4.80. Some 6 months later in the M.O.T. the emissions registered 0.09. That to me alone was worth buying the kit.
Anyways, I have now clocked up 30,000 miles with the HHO system on board and I regularly do a particular jaunt across several European countries which used to always consume 75-80 litres…Always!
With the HHO as a supplement I have used at best 50 litres and at worst 58 litres ( I know this, as when I fill up I check the pump!) on this run.
I do apologise if this does not compute with any of your belief systems or any laws of known Physics but I swear on my Mothers grave that what I have said is true.
I wish you all luck paying the criminally insane prices demanded by the oil villains whilst your vehicle’s emissions steal a healthy future from your children.
For those of you who honestly believe that motor companies have not been warned off of this technology by the Oil criminals, then perhaps you have a lot to learn as to the ways of the capitalist world.
Love to you all.
James 23
6 December 2011, 10:10 pmJon:
Dear James 23,
7 December 2011, 12:53 amI’m sorry, but this is just more unverifiable anecdote, none of us have any way of telling if your tests were fair or even if they are true. This combined with the results being so implausibly good and the there being no plausible known to science that it could work lead me to conclude, one the balance of probability, that you are either mistaken or lying. Now it it is in fact true then you should get yourself some decent scientific evidence to back up your claim because after that you are a billionaire.
Thanks,
Jon.
Z5:
Hi,
How is discworld today? Still flat I guess…
20 December 2011, 4:23 pmJon:
San Francisco is great, thanks. I see your computer is still working, that airplane still fly, that medicine still typically doubles people’s lifespans… so the scientific method is still alive and well and so HHO still does not work… or are you a young earth creationist and climate change denier? In which case, best step away from that computer for it is magic and the devil’s work. You are a con man, thankfully not a clever one. Now piss off will you?
20 December 2011, 6:04 pmJames:
Z5
21 December 2011, 8:08 amYour facts aren’t facts really. LPG doesn’t burn out valves because of lack of cooling by any means, Air-gases require much greater control of mixture that often worn, unmaintained systems develop open air leaks which is the single cause of burnt valves.
Air-gases do better with higher compression when used alone due to their higher burn rate.
From experience with HHO, carefully controlling and restricting incoming outside air has been KEY in controlling its effectiveness. Re-burning a small portion of spent fuel(HHO), which is super hot steam at that point, thru a modified EGR valve has also increased the power output noticeably.
JON
Not looking to argue with you but the obvious still stands, YOUR wrong also.
PEACE TO ALL ………… Happy Holidays.
James:
Hate to say Jon, i just read up on this guy your bashing (Richard Bird). Not so senseless! Don’t know him or anything, but in reading the info section, i found everything that I’m learning of HHO the hard way is more than TRUE. I’m not the only one in America to get unbelievable mileage by using HHO either. Someone whom drives a Saturn SL-1 gets 99.5 miles a gal. I can get 129 miles a gal. on what i put together out of a small amount of recycled parts and $100, nothing is impossible! As i progress I’ll send you a link so you can follow up. I have no intentions of selling anything. If your worth anything as a human you’ll post it as well for others to use! I look forward to sending it within a few months, the HHO only gets my part time attention as i have a family and a job. I’m not hating on you, so keep your mind open!
31 December 2011, 9:50 amJon:
Hi James, I’l take you at your word that you are not a hater. Nor and I. But I assure you there is nothing to this technology. Whatever you have read in his “info” section is just pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo, to anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on the subject it makes no sense at all. He is a skilled con man. He targets trusting people who don’t know anything on the subject and he scams them.
31 December 2011, 11:30 pmIf you think you are getting better MPG from using HHO then you are mistaken, there is something wrong with your test. You can’t be getting better MPG because you are consuming more energy, not less, and there is nowhere for this energy to come from. You can’t ever get more that 100% of the energy out of the fuel, you can’t even get 100% and you certainly can’t get 150%.
James:
You see I think this is where you confuse this concept. I’m not getting 100% or more from gas! I don’t even use gas full time with that mileage. When a vehicle is running with a very minor load to the engine it doesn’t need to consume as much fuel. But gasoline has a poor ratio for mass to energy considering its waste! There are hundreds possibly thousands of people world wide that have made lawnmowers, small generators, and even motorcycles run at idle on nothing more than HHO! You cant dispute that! But I use it to my best advantage and I get (-)(+)129 mpg on the interstate, city driving goes down considerably (41 mpg). As for the energy consumed to make the HHO, I only use 3 volts of the available 12-14 volts the car charges at. NO loss. I also reuse the LOST heat of the engine to my advantage as well. You know heat is energy, Yes!
1 January 2012, 4:39 amNo matter what you drive, use or need that is powered you will always need some way of fueling anything. And you will always have energy loss. Its up to humans to figure out the best way to extract the best possible results of what we have available. Is this not what science is about?
Like i said im not getting 100 or even 150 percent out of Gasoline ! I only use the gas when i need to. On low load conditions I use nothing more than HHO. At a max of 3.5 volts of an available 12-14 volts i dont even create a counter load. People around the world have made small 2 cycle engines and even a 4 stroke motorcycle idle on HHO! City driving my GAS mileage is near 41 mpg, HWY has been near 129 mpg(a little more and a little less)
Jon:
James,
10 January 2012, 7:46 pmThe fact that you are measuring energy consumed in volts tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the concept of energy… and therefore the reliability of your account of what you think is going on here… Measuring energy in volts is like measuring speed in seconds, it is only half the story and therefore meaningless.
Many people have engaged in the foolishness of trying to make an engine which powers itself, made a wager against the laws of thermodynamics… no one has ever won that bet, including you.
Those people who have made simple engines run on HHO are not getting the energy to make the HHO from the engine, there is always another energy source or it would not work.
James:
As a mechanic, understanding automobiles is my job, my passion, my pass time! “Those people who have made simple engines run on HHO are not getting the energy to make the HHO from the engine, there is always another energy source or it would not work”, this equation is not a complete nor correct analysis! An automobile has A battery, an alternator or generator to start and charge said auto. Any car that has a properly functioning charging system will continue to run when you disconnect the battery after its running(with fuel). THE BATTERY is your primary power source! After the engine IS running, the charging system keeps the battery charged AND supplies the car with the necessary voltage. Using a small amount of what is available to make the HHO and plenty of modifications to fuel delivery and intake(fuel being both gasoline and HHO), I can alternate between the two with the engine running very well, for the averages that i get!
11 January 2012, 7:00 amBy the way way speed IS measured by time(or seconds) !
My understanding of energy is that you MUST use energy to make energy, SO i find the best way to use as little energy as possible to make as much as needed!
NATURE gives us what we need, so use it wisely without destroying it.
Jon:
James,
11 January 2012, 6:42 pmThis is idiotic, are you doing this deliberately? Where do you think the energy supplying the alternator or charging the battery comes from? It comes from the engine. The engine gets its energy from the fuel it is burning. It is not magic energy coming from magic land, it is energy coming from the fuel burned. So if the fuel being burned is HHO and the HHO is coming from electrical energy coming from the engine then it won’t work because thermodynamics says so.
Speed is not measured in seconds… time is… “i’ll be there at 10mph” makes as much sense as “i was traveling at 10 seconds”.
You don’t “use energy to make energy”, you can’t make energy… You don’t have an understanding of energy at all, this is very clear from everything you say, and it is why you are so easily scammed by this nonsense.
James:
I haven’t nor will i be SCAMMED. I’m not buying anything, nor will i. Nor am i selling anything either! YOU eliminate what you need of what i say so you can attempt to prove yourself! I PERSONALLY THINK THAT YOU ARE THE SCAMMER ! I agree this has become idiotic in a number of ways, you refuse to to see beyond your own delusions.
12 January 2012, 7:30 amI SAID WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING ! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE ENGINE IS RUNNING ON ?????? (MAGIC)
The battery supplies the power to get the HHO running(with a on/off switch), then you can start the engine(because you have fuel), then the engine turns the alternator(which keeps the battery charged and provides power to the car and HHO generator), WHEN needed for heavy loads on the engine i then use gasoline to add the necessary power to keep the engine running smooth!
I cant make it any simpler for you then that! Take your thermodynamics and stuff em in that rock of head you have !!!!!
Jon:
James,
12 January 2012, 8:45 pmAd homonym attacks don’t work on me. Nor do any other logical fallacies.
You start the engine on gasoline and then switch to HHO, this means you are now running on the stored energy in the battery, leave it running long enough and the battery will be dead and the engine will stop. But you don’t do that, you switch back to gasoline and the alternator then charges the battery back up again (using more gasoline to do that).
If I am wrong and you are right then you should be able to start the engine and then disconnect the battery and the engine will continue to run. If you do this wen running on gasoline it should carry on running, if you can do this when running on HHO then I am wrong and you are right. Try it…
James:
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU FUCKING THINK IVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13 January 2012, 5:00 amIT RUNS JUST FINE AND DOESN’T DIE !!!!!!
I”M NOT A MORON DUDE, YOU’VE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED AT PISSING ME OFF.
YOU THINK I WOULDN’T HAVE TRIED THAT ??????
I’m only a short distance from fully eliminating gasoline, the car starts WITH HHO not gasoline! Runs on HHO, just lags under loads, like going uphill or trying to accelerate to quickly. That’s when i have to use gasoline!
The more i work on this the better it comes along.
At this point i give a shit if you understand or believe this or not, its being done, it works, so bash away. You cant and don’t want to understand it. It doesn’t fit into YOUR logic. All i know is it works, and well.
I’ll call you from my MAGIC kingdom when its completely finished and you can ride on my MAGIC CARpet…………….
Stay tuned JON ,I’ll be back ……….
Dave:
Hydrotechnix claim that Co2 will be reduced to “almost nothing” Is this claim true? as the before and after results can be measured on any MOT gas exhaust analyser.
13 January 2012, 5:09 pmJames:
It works , the world is seeing it even if you dont want to !!!!!!!
13 January 2012, 9:40 pmGood bye.
Hail HHO.
James:
You should meet Mike Allen, of popular mechanics, You would love him. Hes just like you.
13 January 2012, 9:47 pmJon:
James,
13 January 2012, 10:23 pmSo you have managed to break the first and second law of thermodynamics?
I seriously doubt that! I’m going to need just a little bit more than your word here…
Steve:
Dave, to answer your question of co2 reduction
It is CO that is measured on a gas analyser, not CO2.
HC, or hydrocarbons is the other. Hydrocarbons are the unburnt fuel.
Having fitted a HHO cell to a ford mondeo 1.8 of 2003 vintage , I can confirm that emissions have been significantly reduced. At the last MOT, CO was 0%, (yes, Zero) and HC was 21 ppm, down from 79 ppm last year.
This was less than 2 weeks after fitting. These will drop further as the engine cleans itself up. The HHO helps to burn off the deposits on pistons, valves etc.
Oh, and as a bonus tank range is up around 80 miles from 330 to 410 miles on a tank.
Jon, I know you will counter this with your well established rhetoric, save it, I don’t care.
14 January 2012, 1:56 amJames:
Scared ????????
17 January 2012, 12:37 amJon:
Scared? What? I don’t understand. James, sentences help other people understand what it is that you are trying to communicate to them. Single words with no context and far too much punctuation, not so much.
If Mike Allen Popular Mechanics is like me then it is because he understands how to test things properly, he has an education, a background in science and engineering, an understanding of the scientific method and an understanding of why it is so important what happens when it is not used…. Tell me James, who do you think you are like and why?
17 January 2012, 12:49 amJames:
You only let what you feel like be posted ! YOU intentionally cover up the truth, YOU ARE THE CON MAN HERE. When i post something that’s informative, you block it (while its being moderated) ! SO “scared” is what i feel you are of accepting and believing in something that is so wide spread. Is it because your afraid of being wrong? Or that your narcissistic.
17 January 2012, 3:34 pmI’m like no other! But i seek what much of the world would like, Freedom! High gas prices corrupt government and the limitations set upon ourselves by people like you. If there’s something that i can do to change the world, small or large and it’s for the good of all, I WILL! Some people will take whatever they can from anyone they can, some of us give what we can! If i were to assess myself I’d say I’m a Good Samaritan! When someones broke down on the road, how many people stop to help, out of those who expects reward(or compensation)? When there’s a wreck who stops to make sure all are okay, and not injured in need of help? HOW MANY of you just drive on by because you have something else to do or it doesn’t concern you or some other reason that keeps you from being civil. I’m not a civil servant, nor anyone uncommonly special that I see, but I strive to do better and be better than the average.
I seek higher education whether it be trials of life or other. WE as people did not get were we are by having YOUR type of thinking! You claim that I’m lying or dreaming when it comes to HHO! YOU claim that it breaks the laws of thermodynamics and physics! BIG QUESTION FOR YOU JON. Who set the laws of those? Men !! Same as you and I !! There’s too much in this world and beyond that’s unexplored and unknown to limit ourselves by your concepts. What are you the government or do you keep stock in oil?
James:
As to Dave’s question if you care to find the truth! The claim of lowered co2, is true! As i said you may use a scanner or MODIS or equivalent to measure this yourself! Across the board the emissions drop. It takes a couple hundred miles for the computer system to adjust on most cars but HHO helps to burn less gasoline by burning it at a higher rate of efficiency for less consumption.
You can also have an emissions test done before and after to prove this beyond any question !! You must drive said car a few hundred miles before the after test to adjust completely.
JON, don’t forget there’s always more than one way to acquire the same results to something. But you have to be willing to find them.
17 January 2012, 3:54 pmJon:
I have no idea what comment you are talking about, I approve everything that is not spam.
17 January 2012, 7:17 pmThen you go off on an irrelevant rant about what a nice guy you are, how nice for you.
And then you accuse me of working for the “government” or having stock in oil. That is bizarre. You can see who I am. Google me if you want to find out more. Whereby you are “James” at 66.190.166.144 with no surname, no location, no email address….
And “who” set the laws of thermodynamics? No one, well other that God (if you are that way inclined). They just are. They just exist, they were not invented. They are like maths, 2+2=4, there is no getting around them or revising them, they are very solid facts.
Jon:
RE James answering Dave’s question – James, can you cite one single study that backs up this nonsense? What you are saying makes no sense, in fact it is quite silly. If you search this site for “HydroGo” and then go to the comments section you will see some comments from a guy that understands emissions testing much better than me, go read what he has to say.
17 January 2012, 7:23 pmSarah:
Hi
19 January 2012, 5:45 pmI actually bought a VW Caddy van from Richard Bird, registered to his address above in Reading!! I bought it from him at his house in Spain 2 years ago. The van is fine, I have all the documents now leaglly in my name, and it has run well for 2 years! The thing is, the van had the Hydrotechnix hydrogen fuel system fitted, which he said he was using himself, but no longer needed the van, and promised it would save fuel. He said to top up the water every few weeks and this would be converted into Hydrogen! After 2 years the same amount of water is in the container that he put in, and as far as I can see the hydrogen system has never worked. I didn’t worry too much about this, and meant to get around to calling him to take a look, but as the van ran ok, I never got around to this, and 2 years passed quickly. I was considering giving him a call now to ask if he still does techincal work, and to tell him that the system never worked, but both his numbers are now inactive. That’s when I stumbled across this post! I am not sure if the above facts are true, or if his systems work, and I would be interested to get hold of him to see if he can help, or if anyone has had any more contact with him regarding this system. Anyway…I am happy with the van, and I didnt pay too much for it (even with it having this amazing fuel saving system fitted) so I dont feel that I was conned…..
Sarah
James:
I spoke to Richard Bird myself. I contacted him through his web site at ———————-. He gave me some contact info for people in the U.S. He didn’t seem to bad, to me. Sounds to me like your system may not be turned on. Have you checked for a switch or even a fuse? If your not the tech type have someone check it for power or loose connections as well…
21 January 2012, 9:30 amAndre:
Hey, everybody
30 January 2012, 4:52 amThis blog has been quite interesting. I have laughed so hard I got a headache. Anyway, i’m going to add my two cents to the conversation. First off make no mistake about it I am a believer in Christ. I’m a minester and my faith in Jesus Christ is strong. That said, this fact alone flies in the face of science. I am also a truck driver, been one for 11yrs. Now I own my on truck and have always been looking for a way to improve my fuel economy. I dont think I live to far from James in georgia for I live on tennessee just across the stateline. I would love to take a look at what you have done and see what I can do to my 2004 c13 to improve it. Im not for or against hho, altough I hear alot about it jon, I understand your position on the matter. But I want to make my on determination on whether it work or not, not by science by practical use of it feel free to email me james or anyone who would like to converse with me andrewhiteside@gmail.com God bless
Ian:
I started a thread a few years ago regarding Hyclone on one of the Land Rover forums. The theory of swirling the airflow BEFORE the turbo !! Ha ha.
1 February 2012, 12:24 amLoads of people, who had already fitted one to their vehicle swore blind it worked.One guy claiming to have the fasted Landy in the UK – nothing to do with remap, altered gearing etc he had done – it waqs , in his words, all down to the Hyclone.Strange how when asked to test his vehicle on a rolling road both with and without the Hyclone, there was always an excuse.Until someone found out this particular guy was representing Hyclone!! No surprise there.Just a waste of time reading 26 pages .
My point is this:
How come not one single person can come forward and show credible proof of how any of these “fuel saving” gadgets actually work. “It works on my car” is not proof.Show me real, credible, scientific proof.
Until then………..IT’S A SCAM ALL THE WAY !!
Don’t believe me or refuse to believe me ? Fine, just send me £50 in cash and I’ll send you a box of tricks that will double you’r MPG. What’s that ?? How does it work?? Well I’m sure I’ll think of some way to make you understand how an empty box costing £50 works .Cos if you are gullible enough to think you can double mPG for just £50 then you’ll also fall for any old BS explaining how it works (or doesn’t).
James:
Jon,
As i will be corresponding with Andre, Jon i hope that you may see that not all you don’t believe in is a scam over time!
Ian,
I’m not sure what this Hyclone is but its far from HHO or Hydrogen, I’m sure. Where talking about a REAL fuel, scientifically proven and acknowledged as a fuel. As most people are using it as a fuel supplement, some do make claims of false m.p.g. improvements, which damages the credible validation of its true possibilities. So ease up on the slamming down of SCAM claims!
Just so as everyone is aware of, I personally would not put forth as much effort as i have, nor would i continue to if i myself had not verified for myself that HHO is a useful and TRUE positive gain for extending the fuel that i have to pay for out of money that is hard earned. I’m in the poor bracket for income, and i have made NO income or profit from HHO. Yet in using HHO i have cut my fuel bill considerably even with gas prices increasing. I AM A SKEPTIC, IF I CAN’T SEE IT I DON’T BELIEVE IN IT. And i believe very little that i do see!
1 February 2012, 9:21 amSo take that for what its worth!!!!!!!!!!!