We can't just accept everything everyone says without having some science behind it. If we did, we'd spend all our time and crazy amounts of money on wild goose chases and never get anywhere. Skepticism is necessary in FE discussions, doubly so when there's a commercial product being discussed (almost ALL of which do absolutely nothing for anyone who does decently accurate testing).

I count 23 posts in this thread. Of those 23, I count 5 posts from only 2 users that could be construed as mocking, though they appeared to be mainly making tangent jokes about nonexistent metals and employment in the nonexistent metals industry (though there were at least 2 comments that did seem potentially offensive). The rest of the posts were by 6 other users (and you) and discussed it seriously.

Data, data, data.

While only a certain amount of combustion is converted into motion, the rest is heat, etc. We all understand that. I fail to see where something is created out of the very small amount of fuel that isn't used up in the combustion process.

I'd be happy to buy a set of wires if I could go from 30MPG average to 40, but data would actually be necessary.

Quite simply, Ford still sells almost a half a million F150's in the current year of high gas prices, and, obviously, the F150 is a "problem" for it's CAFE. Wires that would change that on any one of their vehicle would be important.

Skepticism is the nature of science, is it not? "Look at this" isn't really a discussion, it has a real feeling of marketing hype.

In the interest of racing, I've tried a lot of products. I've failed to recognize any substantial gains in power, etc. from products that have made promises in power, performance, economy from ignitions, plugs, wires.

In the midst of a lot of talk about HHO gains, there seems to be at least a similar number of individuals that talk about no gains from HHO. Usually, in my experience, the individuals with no gains seem to be better at recording data.

If there was data, again, I'm willing to listen.

I am interested in seeing your results as well, but I think it needs to be a blind test with at least 10 repetitions for the control (no HHO) and 10 for the HHO.

So, have your neighbor ride with you as a passenger. He will decide whether the HHO switch will be on or off (tape a garbage bag over it so you can't see whether it's flipped on or off) and he will not tell you whether it's on of off until all 20 trips are finished.

If it's not a blind test, then it's validity will be questioned- even if you do 10 repetitions because you may subconsciously accelerate slower or faster etc. based on what you think is supposed to happen.

Better yet- remove the "ON/OFF" HHO switch label and not tell your neighbor which way was on or off. He can secretly record the total distances driven in position A or position B and then you can analyze the data at the end of the experiment. Still the switch position needs to be kept secret from the driver at all times.

That's an interesting test procedure. A similar but more common technique is to use a separate small container for a specified marked distance and weigh the container before/after. For your idea, it might be worthwhile to use odometer readings in addition to the water balloon marker (which could be difficult to do accurately).

2 suggestions: That B2000 better get better than 25mpg, as a friend of mine got 32mpg on the highway at 70-75mph.
Second, dropping the water ballon at Xmph, it'll still be moving forward, somewhat skewing the result (albeit very small amount). If you have a paintball gun, or something like that, I'd recommend that more for accuracy.

Certainly looking forward to your results, as I don't have the time or materials (money) to test all these things I don't believe work. I'd love to be proven wrong!

If the road was flat, I think you should coast to a stop and then record that distance, because the momentum the truck had was due to the gasoline that was burning.

Besides that, the truck will sputter and buck a little bit as it's running out of gas- so when do you throw the ballon or shoot the paintball? when it sputters or when it completely dies?

To begin the test- I think you should pick a road sign and while moving at 55mph, switch the selector valve to the small gas container as you pass the road sign. Yes- you might end turning the valve up a half second early or late, but this would only represent about 100 feet of travel.

It seems like too many variables if you were to switch to the small gas container while stopped (how fast you accelerate, how much you slip the clutch etc.) and begin the test from a stop.

I use to drive an '84 Mazda B-2000 w/5speed and it averaged somewhere right around 30 MPG if it was tuned properly. This should give you some basis as what to expect as far as distance. That was on a US gallon.

They had me wondering how well they'd work until he said it enhances electrical systems like the radio and brakes. I'm very open to new ideas, i just like knowing how they work before I hand over money for something.

If he just said it doesn't interfere with that stuff then I'd be fine.

If the HHO inventors wouldn't say I could double my gas mileage by building their unit, I'd be more inclined to build one.

If Joe Cell people didn't say things like this:
And that the gasses pass though metal to get inside the combustion chamber, I'd be more accepting of what it could do too.

It's the WAY out there stuff that people THINK we want to hear, or have convinced themselves of, that we have a hard time believing.

LOL, antigravity effects....where did you find that gem?

https://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Joe_Cell

Nice website, has some stuff that's really cool, like the hydroelectric generator below, but there is some off the wall stuff on there too. (obviously)

https://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ex_Power_Plant