Posts: 2,484
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
My point is that even if it is proven say in the future to produce somewhat better mileage, it is not proven to do so today. It is still valid to reject the technology as not worth installing on your car because if it is that hard to get repeatable, verifiable results today, those results can't be very significant.
If proponents were claiming that this technology got 2% better mileage I might be content to play along. Instead, 20% to 40% is being claimed while the actual results are so varied (and apparently small) that they are probably due to properly inflating your tires or driving with a tailwind. The difference between what is claimed versus what is realized is what is bull. I don't care whether it works a little bit or not at all. There appears to be no evidence that it works as claimed. If someone is lying to you or is simply passing on a falsehood through lack of ability to distinguish falsehood from truth you should judge them accordingly and it shouldn't matter whether they are sorta wrong vs fair to middlin' wrong.
The current design of internal combustion engines is a compromise. There is a theoretical limit to how efficient an engine can be that can never be realized in practice because of non-ideal conditions. The closer you try to come to that theoretical efficiency the more complicated and expensive the engine becomes. If your goal is only a 1% improvement in efficiency then you can get that without resorting to exotic technology, but it probably will cost more than the extra gas would.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
I can save you hundreds of dollars in fuel costs.
Please send $25 for my informative pamphlet; "Take the bus". Check or money orders (made out to "cash") can be sent to RR2 Box 6260 Pahoa, HI 96778
Posts: 2,019
Threads: 201
Joined: Jan 2008
Good joke,but in some cities the public transportation costs almost the price of the gas.Makes sense only for seniors,students and disabled.
Disclaimer - I can only speak for the area I live.
Coaster pass -$160.Gas-$185.Time to work- 40 min.vs 2hr+
___________________________
Whatever you assume,please
just ask a question first.
Posts: 507
Threads: 64
Joined: May 2008
After looking at some of these websites I at least understand how so many well-meaning people get conned. Together with their magic box they also have standard tips for increasing mpg (tires, remove stuff from the trunk etc) which is most likely causing the reported improvements. So in a way I guess it does work! But at an outrageous price. Placebos for car owners.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
quote:
Say what??? You would insist on ignoring the device, even if it produced valuable results, just because it doesn't fit into your "scientific method" box. That makes even less sense! I have no idea if it works, but if it does work, I'm all for it, even if I don't understand the logic. As long as I don't have to sell my soul or worship the devil I'll endorse it if it provides results. If it does work, I'm sure a scientific explanation will be found later.
Uhm, no. He's saying that there is no actual evidence of improvement (well controlled conditions), no likelihood of any improvement (no free lunch) and perhaps the common triumph of unsupported hope over reality is what is really happening. Maybe some commercial considerations are at work also.
Posts: 2,655
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
Pete,
No big deal, but I was responding to what he said. I will not rush out and buy one of those kits. However, if I get favorable reports from friends and sources I trust, I will consider it, regardless what the experts say. I give more weight to first hand reports of personal experiences that are closer to me than testers I have no connection with. I don't disregard such "scientific" tests, I just don't take them as being infallible and I don't make any assumption that any tests, "scientific" or not are objective.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
The last people to say science is infallible will be scientists if they know anything about their craft. And some don't. The reality is that people have been going with well-intended friendly anecdotes about physical phenomena from time immemorial. This thing about controlled testing against objective conditions is pretty new, just a few hundred years, and it's understandable that it doesn't have the standing against the time-tested anecdotal method. But without that objective evidence this hydrogen thing certainly tips toward the snake oil side.
Posts: 7
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
You don't need any fancy $300 system. Just use the garden hose and pour water right into your gas tank and you will never have to bother putting gas in that car again!!
Got doubt?
Got doubt?
Posts: 2,655
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
A new report from one of my local stations:
http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.asp...dd76f2cebc
Rob, any new word from your friend's test?
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 507
Threads: 64
Joined: May 2008
Thanks for that link!
Okay, so the news crew reported a 146% increase in mpg when they tested it themselves.
Under much stricter conditions, at the University, the increase shrank to 10%.
This is often the case with these miracle cures, the closer you look, the more the effect shrinks, until it ultimately becomes zero.
I also think introducing hydrogen gas (remember the Hindenburg?) into an internal combustion engine may not be such a great idea.
