So Sick of the Naysayers

[gizzy]

Holy hell... If that really is the case(LA to NY in 3 seconds), that is amazing. It's about 3000 miles from LA to NY, so that's 1,000 miles per second, OR 5.28 MILLION feet ber second, OR Mach 4800. I know there's a difference between an "explosion" and a "burn" - just the speed of reaction and expansion.

I think you are indeed right about the speed of propogation between the flamefront in HHO and stochiometric gasoline/oxygen. I would love to see some data and expirements that address this.

Ya really. That would be really interesting.What bears reason to me is, when you add a flame to hho the explosion is basically like lightning. Combustion happens so fast it's unbelievable. Plastic explosives are the same way. Now not saying gas isn't fast but gas is an accelerate and the fumes are explosive but it burns, hho just explodes with no residuals. This is what makes it unique. It doesn't have a residual effect with a flame and also has no co2 gases associated with it.

[Philldpapill]

Gizzy, when gasoline is in a stochiometric mixture, it too goes pop just the same. Apparently, after some research, the absolute fastest speed that a combustion reaction can reach, is the speed of sound through the gas. How's that for interesting...

You're right about HHO combusting without any products, other than H20. However, in reality, you DO get some other peripheral products from the reaction if you are doing it in air. This is because the intense heat that is produced, actually knocks around and sometimes recombines some molecules in the air. If you've got some CO floating around, it can be turned into CO2, but in reality, this is a TINY bit - nothing to worry about at all, but rather a side note.

BTW, don't take it the wrong way... but the term "explodes" bugs me. An "Explosion" isn't anything different than "burning"... Explosion's just have a higher rate of reaction, and create a much more rapid expansion as a result. Both HHO and gasoline "burn" and "explode", so there isn't any difference between them in that regard - it's just a function of the ratio of fuel to oxygen in the mixture.

[johnyb]

When i first discovered these misguided fellow men, i was explaining that my usual city fuel consumption has been 12 Liters per 100km for years. I put in this stale fuel that has been in the fuel canister for months, and then the consumption for that (nearly) full tank of fuel dropped to 9 Liters per 100km. I explained that i discovered that it had happened several times, but that it took several months of sitting in the boot of the car in the summer heat. First he listened and was interested, but as i started sharing some thoughts of what i thought it might be related to, it kicked his reasoning mind into gear, and that brought the Academic Law into his focus, which triggered his song and dance. "eeeemposeeeboooooool" "cant get more energy out than in".. He shakes the tail, steps to the right, and the hands gyrate a few more times.. "emposeeble", tap, tap tap,,,,.

Sorry, but i have had to look at this humorously, as i found that taking them too seriously and being upset with the assumptions from their inherited law of thermodynamics, was not empowering to me. Fighting or pushing seems like a waste of personal energy. Humor is just the first step. Focusing on their ignorance is not a solution either.


Since then i have stopped discussing it with closed minded people who cling to their assumptions. However, as i have been learning more and more about engines, i have realized there is a possibility that some people may get the bigger picture and that their cherished laws are not being broken after all. It is not about changing them, but about offering the opportunity for them to use their reason to open them to a greater understanding. It is up to them to take the steps if they so decide.

Many people have their ideas and theories of the what and how of reduced fuel consumption from HHO supplementation, but it doesn't appear to me that anything is definite beyond theorizing in how all of the things interact with one another, even when some aspects seem like very good probability of being part of the truth. I do not know if these theories are going to be of any use to a skeptic who has used his/ her reasoning against possibility.

I think the more critical step is in focusing on the facts that their reasoning mind can not deny, and thus more likely to be accepted by their worshiped deity (ie Academic law).

The average vehicle is grossly inefficient. I do not have reputable figures, so it could be arguable as to what exactly is average. Never the less, if you even took above average efficiency figures of Internal Combustion Engines today, we are talking multiples. From examples i have seen in the past, my understanding is that the average figure of an engine's efficiency is something around mid twenties to 30 % efficiency. It seems to depend on the country too. Generally, the European's seem to be at the better end of the spectrum, and the Americans at the least efficient. My 4 cylinder Mazda is about 30%. That leaves ENORMOUS room for getting better mileage/ reduced fuel consumption.

Perhaps ask them if they are aware of what the average efficiency of a car is? Let them work their reasoning mind, and allow them to come to their own understanding of their assumption. If they already know, then ask them how is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that thermodynamic laws have been broken? If they don't know, then that's where it would be worth while to explaining that a cars efficiency is multiples time inefficient from 100 %.. State the figures if you know them from reputable sources.

[Buster]

The great thing about being open-minded is that it is it's own reward...
you're saving money and the naysayers are still paying more to drive around!!
Seems like great justice to me!
Don't let them get you down. Give yourself a pat on the back and enjoy.