Talk:Oxyhydrogen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Permanent banner suggestion

As an attempt to discourage the HHO fuel saver brigade from wasting our time, how about a permanent banner at the top of this page. With a sentence or two to say that as there are no reliable sources to suggest these magical devices work, and plenty which show they don't, and as Wikipedia can only use reliable sources then it is a waste of everyones time for anyone to try to promote them here. Petecarney (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that here on the talk: page - but (obviously) that would be unacceptable in the main article. We might also take that opportunity to point out that Hydrogen fuel enhancement is the correct place for discussion of HHO fuel saving stuff - but that the policy there is the same as it is here (and indeed anywhere on the Wikipedia site). We might also direct them to read WP:COI, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI before contributing. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Any of that sounds fine by me - but here's another idea to consider, too. I see we already have articles on the subject - why not improve them and link the banner accordingly? Rklawton (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty normal to put that kind of banner at the top of talkpages on fringey subjects which attract similar editing patterns. For instance, see the top of Talk:Homeopathy. However, some might see it as an attempt to manipulate discussion, so we'd need a really strong consensus before putting any particular text up there. Probably worth mentioning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've got my support. And yes, let's do our best to get it right the first time. Rklawton (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the standard talk page header; this seemed neutral enough to do boldly but probably will not dissuade too many fuel saver proponents from posting here with the usual sources. Considering that, support adding a carefully worded banner reminding editors of the importance of reliable sources and verifiability. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can’t remember any specific instances off the top of my head. But I’ve seen articles before where there’s a bulleted list of points that have already been pretty much discussed to death and should not be edited into or out of the article. Support. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fallacy in last sentence of article?

The last sentence of the article reads "The most common and decisive counter-argument against using the gas as a fuel is that the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, and these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency." It seems to me that the same argument should put Tesla Motors out of business, since the energy required to charge a battery exceeds the energy recouped by using it to drive the electric motor.

These arguments about energy balance would be fine (and "decisive") if the oxyhydrogen were being manufactured and consumed at the same place. But they're not. The point being missed here is that oxyhydrogen is mobile energy. When you equate manufacture of oxyhydrogen with charging a battery similar questions arise. 1. What is the energy source's carbon footprint? (If from the grid, that would depend on what the utility offers. If from your own solar panels then you trade off the benefits of lower carbon footprint against higher capital cost.) 2. What is the relative efficiency of batteries and oxyhydrogen (energy recovered divided by charging energy)? 3. Ditto for energy density, by weight and volume. And so on.

What makes oxyhydrogen per se impractical as a mobile energy source is not a matter of energy balance but that there is no point transporting the oxygen component around when oxygen is in plentiful supply in the atmosphere. A hydrogen vehicle serves the same purpose, namely by oxidizing the onboard hydrogen either in an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell (and the same fallacious argument in the last sentence of the article applies just as well to hydrogen vehicles as it does to electric vehicles).

There might be benefits of onboard oxygen, such as fewer NOx emissions and less energy lost to heating the nitrogen leaving the tailpipe, but if those outweighed the very significant obstacles to mobile oxygen we'd surely have heard about this by now. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right - the last sentence isn't specific enough. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your edits now make it clear (to normal readers anyway) that onboard manufacture is what's being objected to, not simply oxyhydrogen as a fuel. (Given that all that's going on here is using energy to pull the H and O atoms apart and then recovering some of that energy by letting them recombine, the idea of an onboard oxyhydrogen generator makes no more sense than having an onboard winder of a sufficiently powerful clockwork motor. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would seriously contemplate such a thing. I hadn't heard of this Meyer chap.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if you're considering off-board oxyhydrogen generation - there is no way you'd want to store the stuff.

• A 2:1 molar mix of hydrogen and oxygen is exceedingly dangerous. A beam of sunlight is enough to set it off. It would be like carrying a tankful of nitroglycerine.
• Why carry all of that bulky & heavy oxygen when there is plenty of it in the air? When you hydrolyze water, the oxygen comes off of one electrode and the hydrogen off of the other. It is completely trivial to separate out just the hydrogen for use as fuel - and it might even be worth storing and selling the oxygen into other applications. So in an off-board production facility, the product would not be oxyhydrogen - it would be hydrogen.
• Pure hydrogen cars are more feasible, lighter and vastly safer than an oxyhydrogen car would be - surely nobody would be insane enough to build an oxyhydrogen car. If they do, I'll personally nominate them for a Darwin award!
• Since off-board generation implies just hydrogen as the fuel, what you have a hydrogen powered car - which is off-topic for this article.
• Oxyhydrogen is not a viable fuel for vehicles. It makes no sense to generate it on-board and it would be madness to generate it off-board.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Carrying all that oxygen around makes no sense, and without it you have a hydrogen vehicle. (Hmm, did I forget to mention those?)

Another drawback of a 2:1 mix would be that it would burn the combustion chamber itself unless it were made of some super-material that couldn't be oxidized, since all three of hydrogen, oxygen, and water vapor will be in contact with its surface in significant amounts at the high temperatures and pressures of combustion. Better to regulate the injection and mixing of air and hydrogen so the latter burns more slowly for a more controlled release of the energy pent up in the hydrogen: for maximum torque (as opposed to horsepower), as well as lower peak temperatures, the pressure should peak where the piston is moving fastest. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an on-board winder would be an excellent idea - if it's used as a braking mechanism. The stored energy could then be used to get the vehicle going again. Rklawton (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that idea is hardly new - but bending a metal spring back and forth is hardly reliable - clockwork motors have to be large - and are really unreliable when used to store and transmit serious amounts of power. The trick is to use some other material...such as a gas...to act as the "spring". You could, for example, turn off fuel injection during engine-braking and use the exhaust valves to pull air/exhaust gasses into the engine as the piston goes down. An extra valve is then used to direct compressed gas into a small storage tank as the piston approaches the top of the stroke. This kind of three-valve engine could compress air/exhaust very efficiently, giving you excellent "engine braking". Then when you need to accelerate again, you change the valve timing to inject compressed air from the tank back into the cylinders on the down-stroke with the exhaust valves operating normally in the up-stroke. When the pressure in the air tank drops to near ambient, you go back to injecting gasoline and revert to a conventional four-stroke cycle. On a modern engine with computer-timed valves you could add an "air spring" regenerative braking system for the cost of an extra computer-controlled valve per cylinder and the air tank. All of this with a conventional gasoline engine - and no special gearing to feed that energy back to the wheels from a clockwork motor. I believe that systems like this are used in some inner-city bus engines where stop-start operation is the norm. SteveBaker (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The regenerative brake article doesn't seem to take compressed air terribly seriously for that purpose. Crunching the numbers shows why. The energy in a 2 tonne car traveling at 15 m/s (34 mph) is ½ mv² = 450 kJ (⅛ KWH). It takes 5.763 T joules to double the pressure of a mole of gas starting at T degrees K, whence 3.3 doublings (log base 2 of 10, the most one can hope for from a compression ratio of 10:1 used to compress the gas) starting from a generous 500 K can in principle store 5.763*500*3.3/1000 = 9.5 kJ/mole. 450/9.5 = 47.3 moles or 47.3*22.4 = 1060 liters at STP, which when compressed 10:1 is 106 liters or 28 US gallons. Hence each gallon of a "small storage tank" can hold 1/28 ~ 3.6% of the braking energy when compressed to 10 bar (atmospheres). Furthermore using a 4 liter 4-stroke engine to compress 1060 liters would take 2*1060/4 = 530 revolutions or 530*60/2000 = 16 seconds at 2000 rpm, way too slow for practical braking.

And all this assumes 100% efficiency. Even realizing 20% would be a challenge, see e.g. compressed air car for an idea of some of the problems here. Better energy densities can be found in the tables at energy density. (Note that the 0.2 MJ/l figure in the second table for air compressed to 300 bar shrinks to 0.0025 MJ/l when only compressed to 10 bar, the most that can be achieved using the engine as a compressor, as can be verified using the above math. Clockwork springs at 0.0006 MJ/l aren't even that good.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The storage tanks on compressed air cars (which do have regenerative braking) operate at 300bar - not 10bar as in your assumption. If a one gallon 10bar tank can store ~3.6% of the required braking energy - then a modest one gallon, 300bar tank could theoretically store 100% of it - of course getting 300 bar out of a normal engine would be impossible. But a modern high-compression diesel engine can manage at least 50bar - so realistically, 18% of the braking energy could be stored in this way. Your number for the amount of time the engine would take to compress that much air was 16 seconds - but you assumed 2000 rpm. A modern small-car engine can comfortably rev at 8000 rpm - getting that time down to a very acceptable 4 seconds, you'd need an automatic transmission that the computer could throw into low gear for this purpose. Obviously it would be naive to assume you'd recover anything like 100% of the braking energy - but for such a relatively simple solution, being able to recover enough energy to get the car rolling again to a speed where the gasoline engine is efficient would be good enough. SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

SOURCE, S'IL VOUS PLAIT

Please source reliable and peer reviewed publications with the words " fringe physicist" or remove it from the definition of Santilli. Please demonstrate that Santilli's publication in AIP, Springer Verlag, Open Astronomy , Nuovo Cimento, Plenum are fringe science or remove the word fringe and his definition of "Fringe physicist". Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

He is clearly fringe about some topics, which doesn't preclude publication of some articles which are not fringe in non-fringe journals. However, that may not be relevant for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Avoidance again....common technique.You are not fulfilling your role here. Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Weimar, Carrie (May 7, 2007). "Snubbed By Mainstream, Scientist Sues". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 3 February 2011.

And it said he promotes fringe science, not that he is a fringe scientist. If HHO is among the fringe science, as referenced in that article, a slight rewrite is in order here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A scientist who promotes fringe science really has to be a fringe scientist. Thet's please be realistic about referencing - we don't require the precise words that we use to be found in the source. SteveBaker (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Magnegas seems to be mentioned, not HHO. Perhaps it's not quite relevant, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The HHO article describes him as "a fringe scientist". This statement is supported in his biographical article. If there's a problem with this characterization, it should be taken up there, not here. Rklawton (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Not true.The article about Santilli says "is an Italian-American physicist and a proponent of ideas some of which have been called fringe scientific theories." Quite different from "Fringe scientist Ruggero Santilli" as in the Oxyhydrogen page. What is wrong with saying " physicist Ruggero Santilli who is proponent of the HHO theory which is considered fringe by mainstream scientists" this is also supported by several publications with statements pros and con against his theory. Please explain why my proposed statement is not acceptable or support it with peer reviewed sources. You owe this fairness which is in keeping with BLP policies. Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) Reussi (talk)Reussi~~ —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

While the words are a bit different, the semantic content is close enough for me. You can try and make it as legalese as you like. In plain english I don't think anyone outside of Santilli's group of supporters would argue calling him a fringe scientist is a mischaracterization. Of course considering his relative obscurity and your aggressive spin, and clearly out of character knowledge of policy for someone with 4 edis, I'm going to guess you're one of a continuing cast of characters and suggest everyone IGNORE and REVERT ON SIGHT. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per above. Rklawton (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a typical single-use account. Someone pops up here and their very first and only edit is on a fringe topic and uses words like "BLP policies" that only an experiences Wikipedian would know. What we have here is primo-grade sock-puppetry. IGNORE & REVERT. SteveBaker (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do you know Santilli ?

Guyonthesubway maybe yes, since you are so sure of what you are saying. In regard to my knowledge about Wikipedia, I am used to documenting myself and there are enough BLP COI and more in the various discussions ......Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk)

So - you've got a conflict of interest. That's no surprise. Please read up on our policies regarding conflicts of interest. Now as for the previous arguments regarding your friend's support of fringe science and his propensity to attribute conspiracies by his peers to suppress his work - how shall we best describe this? I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and most polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You are switching and change my words. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest since you know all these detail and use these insulting words that I would not use for anybody, even you, since these words are demeaning just to say them about a living person while all the other editors are sitting and watching and condoning. Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

'Fringe scientist' on the other hand seems to fit quite well. Personally I don't put a negative biais on the term 'fringe' science. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, support "fringe scientist". However, I'm open to other ideas. Reussi hasn't suggested anything other than to deceive readers. Rklawton (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Condoning" implies that other editors do not agree but keep quiet about it. What we have here is better described as "agreeing" - and that's how Wikipedia moves forward - by "consensus". There is a strong consensus here for describing Santilli as a fringe scientist - the vast majority of experienced editors agree on this point. We have more than adequate references for use of the term - and other articles on Wikipedia, staffed by different groups of editors are in agreement. So that's what we're going to do. I don't even regard "fringe scientist" as insulting. In any field of study, we need people working in the hard core areas - and others working out at the fringes looking for odd new effects with low probability of success but correspondingly high payback on the one in a million chance that they are right. He surely does do significant "fringe" things - the term fits perfectly and it's not insulting. Of course he's also a bunch of other things (as Guyonthesubway points out) - but we aren't going there. SteveBaker (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

SUGGESTION, NOT DECEPTION

What is wrong with saying " physicist Ruggero Santilli who is proponent of the HHO theory which is considered fringe by mainstream scientists" this is also supported by several publications with statements pros and con against his theory. Please explain why my proposed statement is not acceptable or support it with peer reviewed sources. You owe this fairness which is in keeping with BLP policies. The definition of fringe in the Article about FRINGE says that it is a pejorative term" and should not be used about people who honestly study a subject and publish these studies in peer-reviewed journals.. Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Because he's honestly a fruitcake, and we're trying to be nice about it. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have listened to your points, discussed it with you - and there appears to be strong consensus to stick with the present wording. Even if you believe that your lone voice means that a consensus has not been arrived at, the Wikipedia way is to stick with the status quo until a consensus is formed to change that. Since you most certainly do not have that consensus, it's over. It is now time for you to back down and move on. Merely repeating the same arguments is unnecessary, ineffective - and becoming decidedly trollish. So unless you somehow have some new and devastatingly inventive arguments which you have not yet presented, we're done with this. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, moving on the the Dispute Resolution about BLP from where ArthurRubin has already remove my entry. I will pursue it there. since that is what you want . But I still want to add something that will show how narrow minded you are. "The term fringe science is sometimes loosely used to describe fields that are actually pseudosciences, or fields which are referred to as sciences, but entirely lack scientific rigor or plausibility and are not published in referee journals".................. "Fringe Science is considered pejorative" The arbitration Committee proposed some definition exactly to avoid this pejorative character thus resolving the damaging ambiguities of the Wikipedia article on Fringe Science. See below the definition of the Arbitration Committee: Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process (which you are ignoring). So Santilli moves on to International Conferences, publications, lucrative jobs and more and some people get stuck here. Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Please provide a link to this Arb ruling so we may read what they decided in the appropriate context and without your particular spin on it. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with "Fringe science and fraud "

• It does not explain in what way Yull Brown was fraud
• I see no evidence that Santilli called it "oxyhydrogen". From his page I see he is proud of the name HHO. I also see no eveidence that someone elce called HHO oxyhydrogen. Please notice that according to the "inventor", HHO is not oxyhydrogen as it described in wikipedia.
• I fail to see why its usage in torches is mentioned in this section; this use is actually described. So I deleted this right away, being rather obvious.

Please fix the rest whoever knows the topic, since I am but an aciidental editor, who was fixing some disambig pages, came to HHO and then here. Last Lost (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire section on Fraud has no references, no sources, confuses people who sell devices on TV for $300 claiming that they increase efficiency with Yul Brown, Santilli, torches. The references are not found, cited books are not available. You have a lot to fix, but you will not allowed and if you insist you are trolling, you are a sock-puppet and you will be blocked and laugh at. So, go away ASAP or you will be chased away.. . Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Reussi

Sock. Blocked. I suggest we clear the talk page? Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think his concerns were legit - and the responses were clear and potentially useful in the future. Rklawton (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is probably a good case to be made for a ban, which would permit removal of this sort of stuff in the future. Without one though, it should stay since other editors replied. VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a difference between being blocked indef and being banned? I think he's been banned about 10 times now under various logins.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference; please see this oh-so-Wikipedia table. The rest of the policy is obviously of relevance as well. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, reading the policy you're correct, but it seems a bit silly doesnt it? Should we persue a ban on Kaufman? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The guy continues to make socks even during an indef block - seems like that's acceptable reason for a ban. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_ban_of_User:Kaufman1111. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

oxyhydrogen vs HHO

2nd attempt:

I am not an expert on the subject, but a see a confusion of concepts here.

• As the article states, oxygydrogen is a legit gas mixture, without any particualr fantastic properties.
• The article does not provide references that the hoax gases (Brown's, HHO, etc.) are called "oxyhydrogen", therefore I started questioning that the section "Hoax/fraud" belongs here.

I would suggest some rephrasing (based on references) that the mentioned dubious substances are nothing but oxyhydrogen, in opinion of experts. Then inclusion of this section makes sense. Last Lost (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the means by which the "hoax gasses" are produced is electrolysis - and without separating out the gasses that come from the two electrodes, the result must be a 2:1 molar mixture of hydrogen and oxygen...which is how oxyhydrogen is defined in our lede. The name "HHO" is a pathetic (and entirely ignorant) attempt to add mystery to what is in truth 2H₂ + O₂. It's unscientific, incorrect and flat out wrong. Naming gasses after people is something that has long been out of fashion with scientists because it lacks the descriptive power of the chemical name - so "Brown's Gas" is also out of the question. Since this is an encyclopedia, we're going to use the correct, modern term. Is it necessary to find a reference? No. Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia does not require a reference for every stupid little word or phrase, where a fact is unlikely to be contested, it need not be referenced. Furthermore, it would give undue weight to the proponents of the "hoax gasses" to allow them to say "our gas is different and you don't have a reference to prove that it's not". The truth is that the default position is that there is nothing whatever weird or wonderful going on with these very mundane electrolysis machines - and what they produce (if it needs a name) is oxyhydrogen. If these people wish to say that this gas that they make is NOT oxyhydrogen then that is an outstandingly amazing claim - and they'd better have backup for it in the form of gold-standard peer-reviewed scientific papers. Because they don't have that, we must take the default position - which is that there is nothing special going on here - and therefore the name "oxyhydrogen" is the correct one. SteveBaker (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case the first sentence of the section "Fringe/Fraud" must be deleted, if I understand correctly your point about WP:UNDUE (no reason to promote fraud in wikipedia). Please let me recall that in wikipedia, everything we write about, however stupid it is, must be referenced from respectable sources. Last Lost (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning that the word is used in association with fraud does not equate to giving the fraud itself undue coverage. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> Still, you have to:

1. either provide a reputable reference which says that the fraud is a fraud, if the fraud used to be sufficiently notable.
2. or delete the discussion of the fraud, if it is entirely nonnotable.

Guys, I am baffled; I guess I cannot write logically enough. My major point here is the need to follow both WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE combined. DO you agree with this or not? Last Lost (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong - it is absolutely NOT the case that every single statement has to be referenced. That is an all-too common misconception and it needs to be set right or else perfectly simple, sensible statements that are of immense value to our readers become impossible to make. To quote from WP:V: "In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.". (This point is echoed in WP:RS also).

This article isn't about fraud - the four sentences we devote to it mainly exist to point people to the relevant articles that discuss this matter in more detail. It is not our business here to provide a detailed description of this somewhat minor activity. This is an article about a chemical mixture mostly notable for use in welding gasses and such like.

If you are truly arguing that you personally believe that the term "oxyhydrogen" is NEVER used in references to Brown's gas or HHO - then I'd find it exceedingly difficult to take you seriously! We don't say that it's "correctly" used or that it's "always" used - only that it's "sometimes" used in that context. Since this it is completely bat-shit crazy to claim that the term is never, ever used that way by anyone anywhere - we don't need a reference for the fact because it's unlikely to be challenged and it's not a quotation - and that's good enough for WP:V.

Writing a decent, informative, useful Wikipedia article is hard enough as it is. Insistence on having every tiny nuance be verifiable is not what Wikipedia policy demands of us. SteveBaker (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't twist wikipedia rules when you like to do nothing. And don't read my mind. And read the article itself before making arguments. YOu wrote "to point people to the relevant articles", but there is no article on Brown's gas. And I am truly arguing that if you say that someone called something by then term in the article title, so please take this seriously, or I will delete the unreferenced phrases in question, since you are refusing to comply. And if you will revert it without addressing the concern, you will have a chance to be cited for disruption. And please watch your mouth: no amount of badmouthing will replace the requested quotation. Anyway, like I wrote 5 minutes ago below, I have no desire to continue cooperation with a person with bad attitude. I will return to this page only when a decent person joins the discussion. Last Lost (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that non-controversial assertions do not require sources. I also note that a quick Google search results in numerous pages associating HHO with "Oxyhydrogen". Lastly, User:Last Lost has taken it upon himself, in spite of this thread, to edit the HHO article to remove references to Oxyhydrogen - never minding that the HHO gas link redirects to the Oxyhydrogen page. I call upon Last Lost to realize that HHO and Oxyhydrogen are synonymous and to stop editing the HHO and Oxyhydrogen articles without first obtaining consensus. Rklawton (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Water-operated vehicles

I don't know whether someone noticed that the quoted argument against them is fundamentally flawed, namely "the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it". This statement is correct per se, but the conclusion, if drawn only from it, is baseless. To make my statement clear, let me rephrase it in abstract terms: "the energy required to transform the matter from state A to state B exceeds the energy recouped from state B." Now, I retire for 24 hours and let you all themselves figure out that this "killer argument" would have stopped the development of all industry starting from 1882 and beyond. The first one who guesses what happened in 1882 in relation to this issue will get a cookie from me. :-)

P.S. It is possible to effectively denounce water-op vehicles, but this requires a more detailed argument. Last Lost (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You have either misread the statement - or your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is woefully weak.

We're saying "the energy required to split water molecules (taking them from state "A" (water) into state "B" (2H₂ + O₂)) exceeds the energy recouped by burning it (which transforms 2H2+O2 (state "B") back into water molecules (state "A"))". This is a true statement based upon the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics tells us that while energy is most certainly conserved in going from A to B and back to A again (the first law), the issue of entropy (the second law) ensures that we will never recoup the energy we put into it (except at the absolute zero of temperature - which the third law neatly precludes). So the energy we put into the water to make oxyhydrogen is still present somewhere in the universe after we burn the gas...that's for sure - but we can't ever use it all to drive a vehicle.

So stop trying to play Mr Clever Pants. I have no interest in solving your silly historical puzzles and being awarded "cookies" while you sit there thinking smug thoughts about how clever you've been. The rest of us here are very familiar with all of these arguments.

And Edison only demonstrated his steam power plant in 1882 - he invented the system many years earlier and patented it in 1880 - so you're not even right about that. Steam is only the operating fluid in a steam-engine - it doesn't power it any more than the steel in the pistons does. The power comes from whatever heats the water - coal, wood, etc - and a quick read of Carnot's theorem would benefit you greatly.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Man, you have serious problems with the sense of humor. I did not insult you. Why would you want to insult me?Anyway, you guessed correctly what I meant, even though my Mr. Pants were not so Clever, so you can claim your cookie when you cool down. Now, to serious business. You wrote: The rest of us here are very familiar with... -- probably familiar, but not "very". You wrote, correctly, about thermodynamics. But you, incorrectly, did not read what another editor (me) wrote. I wrote that the thermodynamics is correct, but the argument is incorrect. I also wrote that the argument may be made correct (and I didn't invent tyhe correct one). Long story short, in order to completely debunk water-powered engines, in addition to exposing the perpetuum mobile stuff, one must also denounce other perceivable advantages:

• Oxyhydrogen as efficient power storage, e.g., for a recuperative gadget (proved that not)
• Oxyhydrogen as catalyst for fuel (proved that not)

<sigh> Your belligerent attitude revulsed me from further continuation of discussion with a disrespectful person, and I am off to playing digger. And you better go and read some wikipedia articles on the subject. Last Lost (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a little confused about this argument. Please clarify for me, how is it not possible to run an engine with a combustible fuel such as oxyhydrogen? Can oxyhydrogen be stored and then used in a "power cell" in much the same way hydrogen is? What if the power was supplied via solar panels, and the gas that was produced was ( in essence, think outside the box ) free? Wouldn't that mean that all the power produced from igniting the gas would be at a 100% gain, since the vehicle would not be the one producing the gas? And why is it still "fringe" science when THOUSANDS of viable, peer reviewed and documented cases are open to the public to browse whenever they please? I mean, didn't India just give the first ever patent on a "free energy" device that straight up sticks it's tongue out at the "law" of thermodynamics? And now they are saying they have a working Higgs boson? All I am saying, is instead of arguing the same old story, can there not be an intelligent conversation on this subject based on MODERN information rather then something from the 1800's?

There's no need to be confused. Let me explain - the type of car you are talking about where solar panels generate electricity used to crack water to form oxygen and hydrogen for use in combustion or in a fuel cell (to generate electricity) would properly be termed a "solar powered" vehicle rather than a "free" energy vehicle - as the energy source originates from the Sun's nuclear fusion. As for the Higgs boson - that's a dead giveaway that you're reading fringe science. The Higgs boson (if it indeed has been discovered) was predicted using models that do not violate the laws of thermodynamics - so no, it's not a source of "free" energy, either. Hope this helps. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fraud

Here's an excellent example illustrating why we are sensitive to editors attempting to remove references to Oxyhydrogen's fraudulent applications. In this particular example, a website is promoting their product using a heavily edited version of this article to justify their claims.[1] Indeed, this example is so compelling, that I think it would be great if editors could find a secondary source that reviews this example and calls it out for what it is. With this in hand, we could add it to the article. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position. However please understand mine as well. I understand taht "Oxyhydrogen" is a legitimate term, while "HHO" is a fraudster's trick term, kinda dihydrogen monoxide. If a wikipedia article says that HHO and oxyhydrogen are one and the same, then you legitimize the fraudster's language. That is why I am shouting in desert: please find reliable sources which clearly explain what is what. If a couple of crooks says "HHO=oxyhy" then this is an issue for WP:UNDUE. Howevev if a reputable scientist says "some crooks say that their HHO has fantastic properties, while in fact this mysterious HHO is just plain old oxyhy", then this is a valid text for wikipedia. Last Lost (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Both are products of electrolysis of water - both are the same: a mixed gas of hydrogen and oxygen. Your attempts to disassociate the two are what gives the con artists a leg up. You're saying that these products are somehow different - which is the same claim made by the fraudsters - when they aren't different in any way but name. Rklawton (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I finally see the reason of your all hostility towards me. You think I somehow try to support the point that these products are different. I do not. All what I want is for wikipedia article have an encyclopedic discourse which claims that they are the same as products. And at the same time I want to dissociate the terms, just the same as wikipedia dissociates the term "dihydrogen monoxide" from the correct mainstream terms for water. Clearly, DihyMonox is water, but I doubt that someone in their mind would want to merge these two articles. Just the same, HHO must point to the article which clearly says that HHO is nothing but a mixture of H and O, possibly with the history of the fraud and sloppy science. Fraud must be exposed, not just swept under th carpet. Notable fraud and fringe science are just as encyclopedic topics as notable science. We have the whole category:Fraud in wikipedia. We have articles like Time cube. Last Lost (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And you still haven't read or acknowledged the aforementioned discussion page where all this was hashed out and the resulting decision was to merge these articles. If I'm hostile, then I'm hostile to editors who take it upon themselves to ignore the collective work of many other editors and make unilateral decisions without even the slightest attempt at gaining consensus. Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, strictly speaking, HHO/Oxyhydrogen/Brown's Gas isn't "a mixture of H and O"...that would be pretty stunning. It is "a mixture of H₂ and O₂" - the little 2's there are rather important here and represent one of the many ways that the fraudsters are trying to claim that there is magic going on here - and one of the principle reasons that they say "HHO". But again, the default position has to be what mainstream science says - which is that it doesn't matter what name you give it - the bottom line is that when you electrolyze water, you get a 2:1 molar mixture of H₂ and O₂. Electrolysis of water has over a dozen RS to prove that - just pick one. Ergo, every gas produced from water using electrolysis must be assumed to by 2H₂+O₂ until proven otherwise by super-solid RS (which clearly doesn't exist).

Well, I apologized, man, in your own page, about HHO page. In the Oxyhydrogen page I didn't do any rush moves! All I do is talking to the wall in this talk page. It is your attitude that sucks, not my "ignoring collective work". I thought of you as a man of reason. As I see you are a yet another annoyed page owner who refuses to address the arguments presented. I don't want to read arguments "in the aforementioned page". I want to read an encyclopedic article which would discuss the issues I mentioned. Good bye and good luck with HHO. I will not bother you any more. Last Lost (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Once accepted that mainstream science says that this specific mixture is what you get, we would now need an extremely good RS in order to say that HHO is anything OTHER than Oxyhydrogen - because to fail to make that connection would actively imply that there was something different going on - which is a contentious fact that needs an RS. This is a somewhat unusual case where we need a RS in order to omit a piece of information (vis: that HHO is a synonym for Oxyhydrogen). But as Rklawton points out - we've been through this debate before, and unless there is consensus to do something else, the status quo wins. SteveBaker (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Preaching to the deaf. Please point me to the place in this article which says that "mainstream science says that this specific mixture is what you get". I don't care about your discussion; what I care is that the article is unclear in this respect, despite your owners' consensus and powered status quo. Last Lost (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help you to google "HHO" and "Oxyhydrogen" and "Brown's Gas". You'll notice the terms are more or less used interchangably by a wide variety of folks. Not citable to say that they in fact the same, but it certainly is enough to say that the terms are used in association with each other. A self published source can be used to say 'X says Y'. MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove citation request tags. If you cannot cite to say that they are in fact the same, then you cannot add this statement to wikipedia that they are the same. Whatever I conclude after noticing from google is called original research. Last Lost (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, this fact is not in dispute. You are now boarding on being disruptive. Any simple Google search on HHO, Oxyhydrogen, and Brown's gas turns up many useful results. This is something you should have done yourself before tagging the article. I am seriously considering reporting your account as a likely sock-puppet as your position is identical to that of at least one other banned editor - namely that HHO, Brown's gas, and Oxyhydrogen are somehow magically different - the position taken by various con-artists. We had a Brown's gas article (as we had an HHO gas article), and the consensus was to merge it with this one. Now - go do your Google search and tell us what you've found - or be gone. Rklawton (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Very weird accusation. Where did I say that these gases are different? As for merging, it was probably done sloppily: I don't see any references about Brown's gas. And I don't want to edit this article, in view of your aggressive revert warring. Last Lost (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps LostLost doesn't seem to have read MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves , because MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says these sources are in fact citable. I suspect if he actually reads MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves he'll notice that MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says just that. Of course willfully ignoring MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves would make me suspect that he's trolling. I assume good faith, but his unwillingness to read MOS:USERGENERATED#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves makes me wonder a bit. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, this is totall weird. I don't understand what you mean about "citable sources" in this context: I don't see any sources cited about Brown's gas at all! Last Lost (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I mean, is that rather than spending time here arguing that the sources don't exist you could pick any number of links from the aforementioned google search and add them as sources supporting the discussion. In that context, your edits certainly appear to be trolling, or make you appear to be one of a never ending cast of scammers, spammers and nuts that turn up on this shore..Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the heck I say that sources do not exist? I am merely saying that since you are the experts, and I am merely reader, it is your job to provide references, since you are in a better position to judge their legitimity. Last Lost (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please look at yourself from a side. I say: "Please provide a source". And you are saying "You are arguing that sources don't exist. You are a troll". Please select an appropriate polite term to describe this type of debate. Last Lost (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I used the word "troll". You are, however, tagging material that isn't controversial, that you have no reason to doubt, and that you could easily verify yourself, and that's disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss improvements to the article here, please. If anyone has concerns about civility they are probably best taken to the editor's talk page. VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Third (fourth?) opinion

Hi. I have removed a third opinion request from WP:3O. 3O is for when exactly two editors are involved in a dispute, which is not the case here. If you seek additional outside comment, you can use requests for comment or mediation. I have some level of sympathy for Last Lost's argument, if I am correctly understanding the issue - sometimes there are claims considered so outlandish by mainstream science that no mainstream sources bother with refuting them. But it looks like a source has been added now so maybe that resolves the issue? --B (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

<Sigh>. Yes, it resolves for me the most pressing issue. To think that my simple request: to provide references, especially in such a murky area, would lead for me to be accused of disruption, trolling, Smart Pants, and more. It tells something about the page owners. Therefore I am withdrawing my more serious request: to write more details about the fringe/fraud in question, with clear explanation of misconceptions and possibly the history of the topic, since for the home expert team it is much easier to put a clamp on my curiosity. Last Lost (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

umm nobody owns this article, and you stopped being a simple reader the second you pushed 'edit this page'. It's not our job to jump through hoops you set up. Contribute, research it and write it yourself, or stop whining about it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody asks you to jump through the hoop for personally me. And I didn't stop being the reader. And if you don't respect the reader, and even less respect the writer, then nobody needs your teaching others how to live. All I did was to ask people who are supposed to know the topic to do something more to the underdeveloped subject. If this request makes you start insulting people, then I am sorry for you. Last Lost (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read through one of our sources in the article. It's from the extraordinarily highly reputable "nature.com" website. The author is an expert on water and he did comment on "Brown's gas", oxyhydrogen, and water for fuel, and he basically called them bunk. Not everyone will like the source or agree with the expert, but unless they come up with better sources than "Nature.com", and its publisher is highly respected in academic communities, then there's nothing more to discuss. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice that this extraordinary nature.com ref was added only yesterday, after almost a week of calling me names. This kind of reference I was asking for, and of course, now there is nothing more to discuss. Last Lost (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would caution against this attitude of 'Nature says so, so its right'. If you look at the street drug MDMA and it's history, you'll discover Nature also published a paper by a US Doctor claiming it to be highly toxic. This paper remained in the journal long enough for the US government to cite it and ban the chemical, before it was removed from the journal for gross errors; it was later discovered the good doctor had been injecting his test monkeys with methamphetamine. They are good, but not single points of infallible reference, and treating them as such is why people now assume Ecstasy is lethal. Indeed, I discovered that paper still being cited on a US government website as a sole reference on the topic when the paper had been removed from the journal years ago. I contacted that body about the glaring error and received no reply.

There is no such attitude. It wikipedia, the attitude is 'Nature says so, so its right, unless you can cite a comparably reliable source which says that Nature is wrong.' Another sttitude is "Nature says this and John Kook says that, so we'd rather stick to this." Last Lost (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Energy output

In the text it states "When ignited, the gas mixture converts to water vapor and releases energy, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ of energy (LHV) for every mole of H₂ burned."

--> Oxyhydrogen isn't hydrogen, and according to http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_BobBoyce_Electrolizer_Plans/d9.pdf , energy output of oxyhydrogen is 4x greater, so that would make it almost 1000 kJ of energy

We know that oxyhydrogen isn't hydrogen - that's why we don't just call it that! It's a 2:1 molar mixture of hydrogen and oxygen...and that's precisely how it behaves. Claims that it produces more energy per mole of hydrogen in the mixture are pure, unadulterated bullshit, nobody in their right minds believes Bob Boyce! Read the laws of thermodynamics for chrissakes. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support highly unreliable source - not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Someone aught to start a "freak show" wiki for amazing 'stuff' like the above. Rklawton (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Cool! We could add this paper about the medicinal effects of taking the liquid you get from burning "Brown's gas" when diluted in homeopathic dilutions. Two crazy fringe theories for the price of one! SteveBaker (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Knallgas

The top note says " "Knallgas" redirects here ", but it look like it is lost from here. Please add. Last Lost (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fringe claims

I made some statements a bit more specific. Otherwise one would give kooks a weapon to claim that they are misrepresented and hence criticism is invalid. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is in violation of Wikipedia rules. It does not maintain a neutral point of view. Popular Mechanics is not a valid source for a scientific article. Moreover, research from the University of Calgary and MIT support that injection of the gas increases fuel economy in diesels, but not because the vehicle is running off of the gas. Although there is a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting injection of the gas, there is not enough scientific study as to whether the use of these systems is viable or not as far as fuel economy goes. 173.53.70.114 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Fringe Science and Fraud

The title of the page and writing of the section imply that none of the imply that none of the claims are true, although many of the claims in the section are simply disputed and may/may not be accurate. Therefore the section should probably be cleaned up to reflect that the claims are currently in dispute. For example, there is scientific debate as to whether the injection of HHO into a vehicle results in increased mileage, with some studies indicating modest improvements, other not. In addition, the same can be said as for using the gas for cleaning up nuclear waste, as some studies indicate that it is a possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.70.114 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The section you tagged actually mentions that hydrogen as a fuel additive can increase mileage, and the Popular Mechanics reference mentions that removing anti-smog controls can increase gas mileage. Per WP:UNDUE, it is neutral to treat fringe topics as such, and there is no debate in the scientific community that "HHO" is fraudulent. VQuakr (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fraud - Burnt fingers

Don't know if it's been mentioned in that big discussion down there, but I have seen a video of someone selling a HHO / browns gas generator on youboob - it appeared when the site first showed up or even before that. The guy in the video is using a full sized gas welding torch and claims the flame 'automatically adjusts' it's own temperature to that which is suitable for the thing being heated - e.g. the gas it's self somehow 'knows' how hot to burn. I believe he went as far as to claim he could put his hand in it and not burn himself, but didn't.

I have also seen someone else echo this comment on a youtube video this week, showing that it has spread around to some extent.

Paper on Brown's Gas with References and Chromatographic Data

There is a number of people talking about the 'Brown's Gas' or HHO or Oxyhydrogen having had some actual laboratory work done on it and this paper is available: [[2]] The conclusion made in that paper (and yes it has a full and detailed set of references) is that when the electrolyser is operated with AC or pulsed current the gas generated is of a different composition, according to analysis spectrometry, there is indeed both diatomic oxygen and hydrogen as well as some small amount in the monoatomic ionised state, but also an electrostatic/plasma modified state of water in which the hydrogen bonding is neutralised with electrons and there is unmodified water, as well as detectable peaks of what the author says is the expanded state. Having watched numerous videos showing various types of torches, there is no question that those claiming to be showing a brown's gas torch are definitely showing something different to the equimolar electrolysed diatomic oxygen/hydrogen, the pure hydrogen gas mix burns a tiny white flame that throws heat 5x or more distance of the visible white flame, whereas there is other ones that show distinctly a golden orange/yellow flame that when applied to metals rapidly heats them to white hot. A test of acetylene versus brown's gas versus electric arc showed that the oxides of tungsten generated by a browns gas flame contain a different oxide composition that resembles the arc generated oxides. It is one thing to rightly reject clearly nonsensical or fraudulent claims made by people who don't even know what quantum energy levels in oxidation states are, and another to look at a white hydrogen flame made by a DC electrolyser versus the yellow/orange flame made with devices running lower voltage AC current without the obvious difference being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.12.73 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The paper you cite is not peer reviewed, and is published on a fringe science web site. We cannot use unreliable sources and original research. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Welds steel? I don't think so

Where is the proof that this can weld steel? It's probably very inefficient due to low specific heat. This is another borderline fact on this webpage. It may braze and do some welding but it isn't efficient.--24.31.252.254 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It would weld steel, for sure it wouldn't be efficient, but it would do it. Assuming a proper oxygen hydrogen ratio. It would definitely work for aluminum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.251.53 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

These are the melting points of metals.

While the temperature of burning oxygen and hydrogen is higher then steel.

While there is a lot of fringe science around hho generators. An hho generator by itself would probably not create an appropriate mixture but would require an addition of either hydrogen or oxygen to reach high temperatures.

I don't understand how something can be a borderline fact? It is either a fact or it is not. In this case it is clear that a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen can be mixed and ignited to a temperature greater then steel. It also has a clear history of being used for welding in the past. ^ P. N. Rao (2001), "24.4 Oxyhydrogen welding", Manufacturing technology: foundry, forming and welding (2 ed.), Tata McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 373–374, ISBN 978-0-07-463180-5 66.183.251.53 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 66.183.251.53 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Production

This paragraph is worded in a strange way. I am not familiar with the so called "fringe science", so that may be why this is here...but I would say something along the lines of:

"Theoretically, the energy released by the combustion of oxyhydrogen is the same as the energy required to generate it (by electrolysis or any other means).In practical systems however, there will always be some loss of energy in either step, and the combined generation and combustion of oxyhydrogen will have a net loss of energy."

and maybe a link to the article on thermodynamics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.60.202 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Applications (addition) Supplemental Fuel

(Source provided) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910013595

HHO (Hydroxy) gas was used as a supplementary fuel in a four cylinder, four stroke, compression ignition (CI) engine without any modification and without need for storage tanks. Its effects on exhaust emissions and engine performance characteristics were investigated. HHO system addition to the engine without any modification resulted in increasing engine torque output by an average of 19.1%, reducing CO emissions by an average of 13.5%, HC emissions by an average of 5% and Specific Fuel Consumption by an average of 14%.(source link)

I have found a report that proves not only that a supplemental HHO gas will reduce emissions and reduce fuel use, but that it also has another commonly used 'nick-name' which could be also be added to this page.NeiallsWheel (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To further expand on this great information that is already linked and citable ,I would like to call into question the sentence under citation 16. ""Additionally, the number of liters per minute of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the liters per minute consumed by an internal combustion engine""

Can anyone name any car that burns a liter a minute? Just one? Any kind, year, make or model. I ask this because I can not think of any single car or truck that burns liters in minutes. The comparison then is irrational in that , the truth is no egnine that gets such aybismal fuel economy.

Regardless of whether the engine was burning refined pretrol , disiel , or propane, or oxyhydrogen. More over if an on demand hydrogen unit can produce liters per minute then how many gallons per hour is that? How hot does it burn and if it burns hotter than petrol or propane does that effect engine proformence? Are their any hybrid combinations utilizing oxyhdrogen? These questions can be answered with a few quick internet searches but said answers are not found on here yet.

I believe the article and topic in general would be better served by removing the sentence I brought up and the irrational citation supporting it. It place of the misleading illogic The linked citation offered convays a more honest and enlightening cyclpedic contribution. 99.137.241.158 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. The "liters" in the section to which you refer would be air, not petrol. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)