Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles HHO kits - Do they really work? 
538 messages, Last post on Apr 08, 2009 at 12:07 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Mar 24, 2009 10:42 am) We didn't get out of the stone age because we ran out of stones! It seems, as I said before your mind is already made up which is a shame, so this will be my last post on this subject!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: clecker (Mar 24, 2009 11:57 am) Popular Mechanics made up my mind, that's true. They built the device, and built it beautifully, tested it accurately and thoroughly, and found it a scam. They got no extra MPG, they got zilch. I couldn't ask for a better proof. And your proof is????? And saying you believe something, and ridiculing PM is not "proof". If you had say a Scientific American test that showed 40% increase in mileage on their test vehicle after installing an HHO electrolysis unit using 12V current and a mason jar----I'd be impressed. |
|
|
Excerpt from http://www.scidev.net/en/science-communication/practical-guides/spotting-fraudul- - ent-claims-in-science.html How can you get better at detecting fraud? The following tips are intended to make journalists better equipped for judging the quality of scientific claims and detecting fraud: Get to know a field of research Attend scientific conferences or visit research institutes and meet scientists in your area of interest to find out their goals, methods and progress and also the type of criticisms they may have of each other's work. Visit university libraries, or use Internet databases such as PubMed to find publications on a particular topic or by a certain author. This will provide more insight into individual studies. Although primary research papers may be too full of jargon and technical detail to make much sense to a non-specialist, review articles, which explore ideas and hypotheses, may be easier to follow and present a more general view of a fields progress. Check the quality of peer review Ask the scientist whether their claim is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the answer is yes, do not assume this to be a mark of quality — different journals have different criteria and practices, and the quality of their peer review varies accordingly. It is therefore important, if possible, to find out the quality of the journal in question. To do so, consult scientists directly, or check with university librarians that the journal is held in high regard. High quality journals tend to be more widely read and more frequently cited in academic papers. Journalists may also wish to try the internet search engine Google Scholar, a free resource that rates results according to the number of times a paper is cited by others, and hence indicates relative importance in the scientific community. If you are uncertain about the journal's quality, try to find out the limitations of the study. Was it too preliminary, or too small a sample size to be accepted in a higher quality journal? An honest scientist will readily admit to the weakness of a study, and the need for further research — a less scrupulous one may instead exaggerate the importance and significance of the results, and deny that any data are lacking. If you discover that a study has been refused publication, find out why. It may be honest work, but poorly designed, or insufficient in some way. Alternatively, it may simply have been submitted to an inappropriate journal — good science, but too narrow in scope for a broad-interest journal such as Nature or Science, for example. Then again, the authors may have refused to redesign or expand their study, for fear that their assertions will be proved wrong. Question the numbers Are the numbers involved in a study appropriate and sufficient for the kind of investigation involved? Clinical trials, for example, proceed through three recognised phases from initial safety trials of just a handful of individuals to larger trials of effectiveness involving hundreds and then thousands of people. This will reveal whether or not a result has arisen by chance (its statistical significance), enabling conclusions to be drawn with greater certainty. Even if the statistics appear to back the claim, they are still worth checking with an independent expert, as mistakes can and do occur, including in the top journals. Be critical if the claim is made in a public statement. A journalist hearing an unpublished claim during an interview, press conference or seminar, should dig deeper to investigate how the study has been conducted. Ask the following questions (which can also be applied to a published study): How credible is the scientist among his/her scientific peers? Asking other scientists directly can be a quick indication. Otherwise, checking through an Internet database such as PubMed may indicate how often others cite the person's work; Is the scientist based at a recognised scientific institution? How is the study funded? A publicly funded study, for example, has had its protocol scrutinised by experts in order to compete against others for funding; and Is the author likely to profit from the sale of products relating to the work? Although many journals require authors to declare any competing financial interests, some scientists fail to do so. Find experts for advice and comment Finding an independent expert to comment is the most reliable way to judge the validity of a study. When interviewing a scientist, ask them for the contact details of other scientists doing similar work. Alternatively, identify a relevant expert by checking the editorial board of a journal – as long as it is a reputable one. Use the PubMed database to see who has published on the topic. Or go through the list of speakers at a relevant conference, which you may find advertised in a journal, or on the website of a scientific society. Local universities, research centres, funding agencies or government departments may also provide a list of academics willing to talk to the media. Check for ethical and regulatory approval If the study is a clinical trial, and claims to provide evidence for a treatment, vaccine or cure for a disease, check that details concerning the drug or vaccine composition, and any toxic side effects, are publicly available. Make sure that the investigators are officially registered medical practitioners and that the trial or product has both ethical and regulatory approval — either for experimentation or for sale. There are now public databases, such as the US National Institutes of Health service, ClinicalTrials.gov, where clinical trials may be registered and which all top quality journals now insist should be referred to in published papers. Be sure of the facts Journalists must be certain of their evidence, as an accusation of fraud could leave someone's career in ruins. They should check their facts with more than one source, and also anticipate that they may have difficulty in persuading some researchers to speak out against a colleague. An accused scientist may threaten to sue a journalist or their paper for libel, in which case it may be wise to seek the advice of a lawyer before publication. In conclusion, it's worth remembering that most science is honest, and fraud is difficult to detect. In following the steps above, however, a journalist can certainly enhance their skills and reputation for reporting accurate and good quality scientific studies, and maybe catch a fraudster in the act.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 24, 2009 12:53 pm) For instance: 1. Where was the study published? Is this a credible source? 2. How large was the study group? 3. Was a double-blind or tripe blind technique used? 4. Has anyone been able to replicate these results? The minute HHO generators are subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, they burst into flame like hydrogen 
|
|
|
HHO can't work. That's a scientific fact. All the wishing and doubletalk in the world can't change that. HHO proponents have been asked REPEATEDLY for MONTHS for proof of what they claim. Absolutely none has been offered. All we get are insinuations that the people who know HHO doesn't work are somehow mistaken. Well we're not. Those making the claims have had their chance to sell us on this idea and continually refuse to do so. It's a scam, plain and simple. By all means, keep the obfuscations coming. You're doing more to show what a scam this is than I ever could have done 
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Mar 24, 2009 3:06 pm) For the person that posted the Popular Mechanics post- that guy did not build his unit and did not test it thoroughly. He gave very vague almost no details of his testing of the unit as mentioned in reply post 196 on the link below that you added. As i mentioned i am not for or against this tech., but for me (or anyone for that matter) to say that it is not possible with out testing it yourself is ridiculous. No one said that you had to go out and spend in the thousands of dollars to disprove this your self. I would be inclined to ask someone to disprove this by building one of these (give very specific details of testing(not like the PMs guy)) to prove to everyone that these on demand systems do not work. I would like to see those results. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gault (Mar 25, 2009 2:39 pm) No one is saying hydrogen technology is impossible. BMW has already built a hydrogen car. We know THAT works, but we also know WHY that works, because the chemistry and physics of the BMW car make perfect sense. As for PM, what they did is certainly a lot more credible that the opposing "proof", which is "my brother's nephew gets 80 mpg". PM wasn't "vague" at all. What are you reading? Nothing "vague" about computer monitoring of the fuel injectors. No, they didn't built it---they had one of the BEST fabricators in America build it. Did you see the unit? It's BEAUTIFUL. Who could build one better? Ralph in his backyard shed? Don't think so. HHO generators (the battery/mason jar types) are a scam to sucker people out of their money IMO, that's all they are. |
|
I know it's kicking a dead horse, but this is one dead horse that deserves to be kicked, and HARD. The news show Dateline teamed up with Popular Mechanics to test the HHO scam. They did it the right way: tested their vehicle (an Accord) at an EPA-certified lab, had the scammer install Dennis Lee's HAFC HHO apparatus (where he claimed the vehicle now go 96 MPG!!!), then retested it at the EPA, Result? Zero, nada, zilch change in mileage or emissions. One can ask for no more proof. Done deal. Scam, and a criminal one at that.   See more here: Final nail in the HHO coffin |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Apr 06, 2009 7:03 am) Conspiracy with oil companies Didn't "do it right". "Out to get him" Paid off by Detroit EPA corrupt I really liked the part where the HHO generator actually COSTS you gas to run it! PEFECT comeuppance.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 06, 2009 8:04 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles HHO kits - Do they really work?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
