Bashing thread, LMAO, you have made the choice to be childess and not be able to answer any hard questions.

Can you name one legitimate company that sells these kits. (YES or NO)

Can you show any legitimate test that show these systems save any fuel (YES or NO)

Can you show proof the EPA testing procedures that have debunked all HHO claims of fuel saving are wrong (YES or NO) I even provided you with the testing procedures which you choice to ignore just because I post them.

You can answer them so you just act like the question is not ask yes you (artnesmith) You have provided nothing but I play with voltage and amps and make bubble to this entire thread. Just like every other HHO thread.


Can you justify why anyone should be looking into this a a means to save fuel when you cannot even show it works, and EPA testing has been done showing it does not.

Is not the whole point of the thread to show that the topic actually works.


Lets remind you artesmith what the orignial thread was about from the first post.

Hi guys,

I know there was a thread regarding this but it has been closed down.

While I was surfing the net, I came accross this thing:

http://water4gas-ph.com/

I'd like to ask you guys to give an opinion about what they offer. Is it real? Is it a scam?
We have proven the case that it's a scam?

[SIZE=7]YES WE HAVE!

[SIZE=2]Have you provide one piece of proof other wise?

[SIZE=7]NO!

[SIZE=2]You choose to ignore all fact about the impident amount of gas your kits produce with how much air and fuel a vehicle actually uses.

When confronted by facts that you now are right you choice to just ignore them.

Point in fact and I will use someone elses and not just mine.

You got OWNED on all these facts and you have no answer.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
Liters of hydrogen doesn't equate to liters of gas. Unless you specify that the energy density of atmospheric hydrogen, which is what you're producing, since your system is unpressurized, is 1/3000th that of gasoline.

Yup. 1 liter of gasoline = 3000 liters of hydrogen gas.

So... 2 liters a minute... 120 liters an hour... 1/9th of that is hydrogen (we don't need extra oxygen, remember?) equivalent to... about 4 milliliters of gasoline. That's to offset how much of the 1000 milliliters (or more... much more for engines above 1.6 liters) of gasoline consumed per hour in a typical automobile? That's 0.4% And if we're looking at it as an octane booster... given that Hydrogen has an effective octane of 130... then that 0.4% is equivalent to +0.5 RON. Still not effective, either as a fuel or as an octane booster.

That's why I said mass is the only factor that counts. And the amount of water consumed will point you directly towards the mass of hydrogen produced... which will point you to how much gasoline usage you can offset with the system.
Prove this wrong!!!


Here is your totaly ignorant statement about testing of fuel saving devices.

Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.
Hmmm WRONG!

I posted exactly how they are tested and you choose to just ignore it. I'll put it again so you can see just how totally wrong you are. Feel free to look up the information yourself which is what you should have done to begin with.

Please tell us the EPA is doing it wrong!!!

Here's how real fuel economy is checked by the EPA.


(1) Degree of improvement in fuel economy
(2) Effect on exhaust emissions
(3) Vehicle applicability
(b) The Administrator may determine that, in certain cases, tests using engine dynamometers are adequate for determining the effect of a device. Examples of such cases are given below.


(1) Long-term effects. In some cases, it may be necessary for the engine to operate for several thousand miles before the effectiveness can be adequately measured. In such cases an engine dynamometer will permit a less expensive and better controlled durability and economy test than one in which a vehicle must be driven on a durability route and then tested on a chassis dynamometer or test track.


(2) Durability requirements. Aspects of engine durability can be efficiently determined using specialized engine testing rather than through durability mileage accumulation in a vehicle. A number of standard engine tests are presently used which can be incorporated into this requirement.


(c) When in the judgment of the Administrator a device cannot satisfactorily be evaluated using either dynamometer or track versions of the City Fuel Economy Test and the Highway Fuel Economy Test, the Administrator will select or design other procedures.


The Administrator will choose a test procedure or procedures from various engine dynamometer durability test procedures used by research organizations in government, the oil industry, engine manufacturing companies, and independent laboratories.
Driveability tests.

Driveability assessment (at normal ambient temperatures) of the baseline configuration, of the adjusted configuration (if required by the Administrator), and of the fully retrofitted configuration may be conducted at zero device-miles for all vehicles included in the durability fleet, and at approximately zero device-miles at low ambient temperatures (0 °F–20 °F). Driveability evaluation procedures will be provided by the Administrator when necessary.
Performance tests.

The effect of a device on a vehicle's performance will be determined by performing wide-open-throttle 0 to 60 mph acceleration tests (at normal ambient temperatures) on the baseline vehicle configuration, on the adjusted configuration (if required), and on the fully retrofitted configuration. Tests will be conducted on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track, with appropriate speed-time measuring equipment, on as many vehicles as determined to be necessary.



Track test procedures.
(a) Cases may arise where it will be necessary to evaluate the fuel economy effects of a retrofit device on a test track, because the effect of the device cannot be adequately tested using the chassis dynamometer procedures. (An obvious example is a device that changes the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle.) In such cases, testing will be performed on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track for such dimensions that the speeds required by the city and highway fuel economy tests may be safely achieved.


(1) Because aerodynamic drag is not a linear function of velocity, it will be necessary to limit testing to times when the wind velocity is less than 5 mph, with gusts less than 10 mph.


(2) Testing will also be limited to ambient temperatures between 60° and 90 °F, and to times when the ambient temperature remains reasonably constant during individual tests. Temperature differences between tests of baseline and retrofit configurations will also be minimized.


(3) Exhaust emissions will not be measured during track testing.
(4) Fuel economy of a vehicle running on a track will be measured using either a volumetric or gravimetric procedure approved by the Administrator.


(5) Vehicle speed and distance will be measured with a “fifth wheel” type of device. Suitable apparatus will be used to generate a permanent record (strip chart recorder, etc.) of the vehicle speed versus time.


(b) City fuel economy test. Although essentially the same procedures will be used for track testing as for dynamometer testing, some modifications will be necessary to insure safe operation of the test vehicle and to adjust to the requirements of track testing.


(1) An assistant to the driver will be necessary to steer the vehicle, so that the driver will not be distracted from following the speed-time schedules used in the Federal test procedure.


(2) The test vehicle will be preconditioned within the same time constraints given in §610.43(a)(1)(ii). Preconditioning may take place either on the track or on a dynamometer. The 12-hour soak after preconditioning will take place in an area where the ambient temperature will remain within the 60° to 90 °F range, indoors, if necessary.


(3) The vehicle will be transported to the test track without being started. If the distance from soak area to track is no greater than one-quarter mile, then the vehicle may be pushed or towed to the track. Otherwise the vehicle must be transported by truck or trailer.


(4) Fuel economy will be determined by either a gravimetric or volumetric method.


(c) Highway fuel economy test. The highway test will follow the city fuel economy test in the same manner as in dynamometer tests (§610.43(b)). Fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.


(d) Steady state tests. Steady state tests on the track will be run in the same manner as on the dynamometer except that fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.
I'm pretty sure your also about to get OWNED again by Ghosthunter for you little comment on him being dishonest.


[SIZE=7][SIZE=2][SIZE=7][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]