I don't think anyone is questioning the value or use of a device that could double your MPG its just the physics don't work. Your system generates 1 liter of mixed gaseous HHO per minute. This is supposed to replace .11 pounds per minute of LIQUID gasoline? .22 pounds per minute of fuel flow at 60 miles per hour is 30 mpg. This does not count how much 15 amps of extra current draw will cost in MPG.

 

Facts, not quotations - this is what people want.

You are long-winded (as am I), and articulate, but I see little factual detail or independent proof of any claims or references. Maybe it's early and they are forthcoming. Just don't think you can snow THIS group. "Baffle 'em with bullsh*t" just won't fly here. Oops, there I go with the famous quotes

 

Mike ( woj )-

Install your product on my car at no charge to me for 30 days.
I will agree to test it for you at no charge to you for 30 days.

I will post the results on this site, and since we all want high MPG, and you are sure it can deliver, then I will help you sell thousands of units, and I will expect no compensation at all. I will just report.

After the 30 days, I will pay IN FULL for the product if it works HALF as well as you say.

Do we have an agreement?
Where can I drive to have it installed?
This is not a joke, I am dead serious. I am willing to do this for you.
-John

 

This product is not FedEx and it isn't Gone With the Wind. While the quotes are rather fun, you are not Galileo, Mike. However, Mike's postings are not far off from the standard kind of response that I would have expected from someone in the business of selling this kind of questionable product- a response that is very short on science, very long on bluster, and chock full of assurances that there are legions of satisfied customers willing to give personal affirmations of the quality of the product, regardless of any scientific explanations about *how*, exactly, it might work.

Frankly, this whole discussion reminds me a great deal of some of the situations described in amusing detail in a great book I own. It's called "Voodoo Science" and it's by a fairly well-known science writer named Robert Park. I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in stories about the kinds of absurd products that have been pitched with varying degrees of success over the years to a credulous public despite scientific impossibility. Park does a good job explaining for laymen how these things sometimes catch on, and then debunking the actual science fallacies or misunderstandings involved in each.

 

Hi leahbeatle, I never claimed to be Galileo or anyone other than a businessman, but since you brought him up, the famous "Dr. Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland". What you will never hear from Dr Park is he was challenged to a debate with the head of our R&D. The President of the University of Maryland assurred us Dr Park would attend. (A sizable donation to the University was required), We did a public meeting RIGHT on Dr Park's own campus, the University of Maryland, which was well publicized in advance. The good "DR" would merely have to walk across the campus to attend and guess what,,, Dr Park was a no show. Kinda makes you go Hummmmm! Lots of people were there but no "Dr. Park" I guess confronting the folks he critiques was beneath him. No one on this end is hiding under any bushels.

The PICC/HAFC was recently featured at the WIREC convention in Washington DC (Go here for some pictures) See us at the WIREC convention, (I am not the Mike in the photos)

You can get the latest info released on the PICC by going here. http://www.wingsofjoy.info/hafc/announcement.htm

Regards,
Mike
Wings of Joy LLC

 

Laying into Robert Park is not proof of the validity of your science. The fact that you seem so antagonistic about him takes me a little bit aback; are you somehow trying to say that his arguments in Voodoo Science about debunking fraudulent scientific claims are generally wrong? Are you making the absurd claim that things like cold fusion, ESP, and perpetual motion machines really exist, that homeopathic remedies really cure, and power lines really cause cancer? Because it sounds to me like demanding to 'debate' Robert Park, whatever you imagine that would entail, is a bit like trying to put those wild notions (which have all been debunked far more widely than just Robert Park's book) on the same scientific footing as your product. If that's your aim, then you've done a far more successful job of turning me off your product than anything that's been posted in this thread yet.

Furthermore, this whole discussion is still kind of funny to me, because making demands that scientists constantly go around debating them is a common technique of the hucksters in the book. Sometimes the scientists would debate them, but when they did it was usually a mistake; often it would give them a kind of credibility whether the arguments held up or not. Science is not a field where 'public debate' between one person and another is what determines the things we understand about it- if something fits the observable facts, demonstrably, then a consensus is reached, information is exchanged, and anyone who isn't convinced can go reproduce the result for themselves.

If someone seriously wants to 'debate' the validity of a fundamental scientific principle, like the conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics, then by all means, design an experiment, publish your results for peer review and be prepared to face the skeptics with cogent explanations, reproducible results, and actual data. Doing so simply in the context of promoting some product is not only a bit fishy, it's also not the way to convince anyone.

 

I do not see how pointing out that Dr Park would not come and talk to the people he critiques is antagonistic. I was just relating the facts. There is no debate needed, this was years ago with different technologies. The HAFC speaks for itself with it's effectiveness.

 

(off-topic) you're joking right? Carbs did not vaporize the fuel. What carburators and fuel injectors do is more along the lines of atomizing the fuel. Basicly breaking it up from a large mass of liguid into tiny dropplettes of liquid. Vaporizing would turn the gasoline from a liquid to a gas form.

Maybe you just got the terms mixed up... And for the record, I loved tuning carburators. I loved going to the track, reading spark plugs, changing jets, power valve, accelerator pumps, etc. It's just not the same pluggin in the laptop to the race car, downloading fuel maps, and reading WBO2 logs, etc. (/offtopic)

 

Hi guys, I recently visited your site.I'm doing a Chemistry project and was wondering if HHO is a viable source of energy? Does it waste more energy than it uses?

Thanks.