27515Views495Replies

Author Options:

Anybody interested in building HHO generators? Answered

I'm keen on starting a serious discussion group of folks who share my enthusiasm for HHO alternative fuel generators. Thus far there's only been one Instructable (Serge) and loads of YouTube videos, but most other sites either want to sell you plans or sell you a retail device. I'd like to start a club of sorts with folks who want to 'roll their own' but perhaps lack some of the electronics or other material fabrication techniques. We could help each other design & build stuff (like an hho generator for you car) and then post the how-to's here on Instructables. Anybody interested?

50 Replies

user
DavidN71 (author)2015-04-18

Using H2 and O2 as a fuel additive in modern automobile engines doesn't work. The US EPA regulates tailpipe emissions, so modern computerized ICE's are designed to operate in a way that limits NOx and CO emissions. That means lowered compression ratios and fuel with alcohol in it and a computer that adjusts valve and ignition timing if you try to go around those limits.

Adding H2 to fuel changes the way the fuel burns, but with lowered compression ratios, you can't take advantage of it. racing engines have high compression and water added to the fuel. Water absorbs infrared well, so heat from burning fuel is captured by the added water into expanding vapor instead of being transferred to the piston head and cylinder walls.

Higher flame temps mean better thermal efficiency but also more NOx production, so that is prevented in a modern car engine by design.

The basic design limitation of a reciprocating piston ICE is that the burning fuel wave front cannot match the moving piston head except at one RPM. Either the burning wavefront lags the piston or it overruns the piston (knocking and pinging).

The best efficiency using expanding gas to drive a machine is adiabatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

This is impossible in a reciprocating piston ICE. If you get 15-20% out you have done well.

People who pursue electrolysis of water for car engine modifications are pursuing junk science.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
MY (author)2014-10-05

The Wright Brothers did not give a flip about "peer reviewed" research. That's the problem with eggheads...they rail against things they do not fully comprehend, and then once it's proven they act like it's always been known. This thread has always haunted by a troll. It must REALLY drive him nuts that SO many HHO Instructables have been posted.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)2013-06-15

We are building home units here in Ontario and have a good link to a canadian based manufacturer. Any one interested in the area should link with me. We are aiming to go 100% with anything that has to do with Tesla or free energy. So must you.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-16

By "free", do you mean "costs no money", or "you get more back than you put in"?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

At this point in time, free as in you will receive rebates from your federal government if it is a koyoto protocol signatory. In the long run, all of Tesla's inventions and/or discoveries where made to be free and liberate mankind from their involuntary servitude.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-17

Ah, just checking you hadn't fallen for any of the woowoo about so-called "HHO"* generators being capable of overunity.


(The gases are perfectly ordinary H2 and O2, not monatomic gases.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

Definetley will not stop at HHO. Please check out the work of Eric Dollard. I have great respect for the work this man is putting together.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-17

The same Dollard that thinks that electricty isn't a flow of charged particles, and that it flows through the insulator around the wire, instead of the metal of the wire?

Hmmmm....

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
steveastrouk (author)Kiteman2013-07-07

Well the energy DOES flow in the Poynting vector field surrounding the conductor....

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

Yeah. You should work with him for the common goal.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-17

Er, no, I don't think so. I prefer to use theories supported by reliable evidence.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

I don't know what it is you are quoting but an arm chair scholars such as Einstein is starting to be more obsolete comparing it to Tesla. Cold fusion from water is another topic I am digesting into although this has nothing to do with Environmental studies I take for the most part. Eric Dollard is the only living man in our time and age that has replicated most of what Nikola Tesla has achieved. Only thing missing is the funding to revitalize this quantum field and de-construct the quantum quackery filtered down through the academia. Many reputations are at risk as we speak.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-17

"Armchair scholar"? If that's what you think, then I think any reputations at risk will not really be missed by the scientific community, if they were ever actually noticed by it at all.

Dollard claims that directly-observed phenomena are not real, and his best evidence for eather is a sketchy thought experiment (when other experimentalists have gone out of their way to do the experiments that should demonstrate the existence of the aether, with, obviously, negative results). He may mean well, but there are simple reasons why he struggles for funding.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-19

https://keychests.com/item.php?id=703

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)asolo'man2013-06-20

I'll save it for when I need a chuckle, but I'd be much more interested in any (post 1905) peer-reviewed papers.

If the aether is real, then the basic reality of the universe is an invariant frame of reference. In such a framework, relativistic effects cannot happen. Yet, relativistic effects are observed, and used, every second of the day (it's a big part of how the GPS network functions), ergo, the framework of reality is not invariant, and the aether does not exist.

By all means, work to reduce our dependecy on fossil fuels, including using electrolysis to generate hydrogen, but do it in a scientific context to retain the credibility such works requires to be widely accepted and used.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

Oh, and the source of my comment was Dollard's own work on "the fallacy of conductors", which uses a YouTube video as evidence that electricity isn't real, and also claims that the concept of electric current is a massive, deliberate deception by the Scientific community over the course of a century...

Oh, and the same website claims "Tesla’s X-rays are different from the X-Rays we use today. Far more powerful. Far Safer, no radiation damage. Many other unexplored benefits".

It's a real disappointment to see such creative energies so badly misdirected...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
asolo'man (author)Kiteman2013-06-17

Currently in Canada the rebates are at $1000 and the kits with installation round up to a little more than half of the rebate.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
rhallcne (author)2013-07-06

Excellent!! I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then? But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)rhallcne2013-07-07

" I see now that more and more governments are mandated that their cars manufacturers to be using this device. " 
[Citation needed]

 "Don't understand why our government back in the late 70's done this as well. Since NASA proven that it works way back then?"
[Citation needed]

 "But we must remember also the fuel injected engine wasn't allowed in the US until years after other countries done it......"
[Citation needed]

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kinkwork (author)2013-05-30

I too am excited about hho technology and am in the process of building a dry cell hho generator. Its a lot harder than I thought trying to keep it from leaking. I think it may be the gaskets im using. I find myself working in my garage until the early morning because I feel like im so close. Its become an addiction and im not bothered by it at all. I believe this is the future and the more we create in it the realer it becomes. Im definitely staying on this site.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)2012-12-07

Some aspects that are not fully appreciated is that freq very short wavelengths are the generated in spite of your driving freq. This has too do with the fact that the speed if sound slows down due to the gas bubbles present in the water during the electrolysis. This velocity can be down too only a few m/s. While the freq is held constant. And the medium is variable, this causes very short wavelengths to exist in the cell. Perhaps short enough to couple with water and or gas atoms. Forcing them too change they're angular velocity.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-07

If they're so good, why have you not posted a project?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-07

Valid point. I never bothered to post the cells that i have experimented with mainly due to the fact the gas production was similar to what others have duplicated. The difference being only power consumed. However my tinkering has been pointing in the direction of the working principles i laid out.

And also due to the fact that i had been working on a number of projects for my own need to prove out various claims. For instance, building circuits that power small devices bases off the "Aramenko Plug". Which i have verified for myself. Also "Konstantin Meyl-transciever". Which i have also built and have verified for myself. Both crude but well enough to validate.

Lastly, my interest has switched toward power production means and using electric motors instead of Internal Combustion Engines.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kunadude2012-12-07

My thoughts are geared towards individuals who are actively trying too duplicate Stan Meyers WFC. And offer any help toward that goal.

No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics. As i have witnessed with other concepts that i have experimented with and duplicated. They are still reasoned that its nonsense. For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.

Due to the fact these individuals themselves never even bother to actually build anything for themselves but merely rely on textbook knowledge and feel they don't need to experiment. This was Teslas greatest complaint towards Einstein. As he replaced experimentation with thought processes. He cane up with a way things should work in theory before experimenting and in some cases entirely.

Ni matter what you think you know, you cannot replace experiments. At best the experiment will chalk up one more for your theory or illustrate weaknesses in the accepted theories.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-08

No amount of discussion or posted videos will suffice many critics.
As it should be.

For these individuals no amount if evidence will suffice.
False.

Properly-acquired evidence is what will satisfy the skeptics. Measure the input and the output.

Unfortunately, no electrolysis cell subjected to rigorous testing has ever stood up to the claims made for it as an overunity device, and the most vigorous promoters of HHO, the ones who make the wildest claims, and most loudly complain that the technology is being "suppressed" by some sort of conspiracy, they never allow their devices to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

Can we guess why, boys and girls?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-16

Oh contrae. You have been missinformed. The patent that Stan Meyer recieved under went 3yr of testing by the patent examiners. For technical proof due to The nature and type h applied for under section 101. That needs to duplicative proof to warrant a patent. He also worked for a company that had contracts with NASA.

Andrija Puaharich as a scientist gives the modern chemical equations of just how more energy is released and specifically, that increase of energy in btu's as the energy consumed to split the water. And not contested by his contemporaries

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-16

Patents are not required to actually work (I know a man who possesses a legitimate patent for a faster-than-light, anti-gravity space-craft).

"Tested by a man who works for a company that did wirk for NASA" does not mean "it works". It could easily mean "it was switched on by a man who laid some asphalt in the visitor car park at Cape Kennedy". If it worked, provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper, published in a reputable journal, that describes exactly how it achieves overunity.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-16

See these are the areas that confuse people. Some patents do not require technical physical proof to obtain while others filed under a different class due require replication of what is beng claimed. So you are partially correct.

Come on, if all patents didn't require verifiable proof then every conceivable concept would be patented by businesses in an endeavor to eventually lay claim to the fool who actually succedes in making them rich since they would already have all bases covered.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kunadude2012-12-16

I am at a loss as too what exactly you are disputing.
Meyer method of electrolysis using hv low current as a real reproducible way to split water? That it does so with far less energy consumed? What exactly.?

As this to me and others serious about it recognize.

Now we have a way to get closer at carrying your gas station without you so to speak

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-17

I am not disputing that Meyer, or any of the others who insist on using the false term "HHO", have electrolysed water.

What I dispute, and you have not supported, is that;

> The gases produced are in any way different from normal hydrogen and oxygen.
> The gases are monatomic.
> That less energy is required to split the water molecules than with normal methods of electrolysis.
> That burning the resultant gases produces more energy than the gases of normal electrolysis
(The two previous points resulting, of course, in overunity)
> That the flame is somehow different to the flame of normal hydrogen (eg melting steel, whilst leaving flesh undamaged)

I am also annoyed at the insistence of many "HHO" believers on referring to an electrolysis cell as a fuel cell. A fuel cell takes in hydrogen and oxygen gas, releasing water and electricity directly, without combustion.

Clear enough?

Give us the evidence - patent numbers, peer-reviewed data - or admit that you have nothing to show for your claims except a lot of glass and wire.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-17

Question. That the gas burned is somehow different than ordinary hydrogen.

I witnessed this first hand at firebird race track in Idaho.
The HHO gas filled a large drum that was setup to look like piston and cylinder.
as the gas detonated by spark plugs in the drum the lower arm lifted a weight as the cylinder imploded. Yeah, I would say thats rather different.
gas can be arranged so there is only an expansive explosion.
I never saw burning of hydrogen causing radioactive materials too quickly alter they're halflife either as has HHO gas demonstrated.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-18
How is that "different"?

Burning a relatively low mass of H2 & O2 in a large surface-area container, at ambient temperature and pressure will produce very little heat & pressure-rise, and will very quickly lose that heat to the metal of the cylinder & piston.

That means the products of the burning - water vapour - will condense to liquid water, dropping dramatically in volume, reducing the prssure inside the cylinder, allowing air-pressure to push the piston inwards.

That's not "different", it's an incredibly inefficient way of harnessing the energy used to generate the H2 & O2 in the first place, and tells me two things:
  • The man promoting it as a new power source was a charlatan.
  • All those who fell for it lack the basic level of scientific education to pursue this line of research.
It is a telling fact that the vast majority of HHO believers are American - it is a direct result of the failings caused by the unwarranted influence of right-wing politicians on the education system (prevent your children questioning creationism, you prevent them questioning anything. Teach them to accept one fairy story by adding a thin veneer of scientific language, they'll accept anything that sounds even vaguely polysyllabic).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-18

Awe my are of expertise. No. Burning of confined h&O2 in a closed volume such as the cylinder will explode with pressure and heat. The heat is not absorbed fast enough by the surrounding metal so an overall expansive pressure ensues. However if the O2 is missing electrons it is an implosive burn.

We in america, already can buy off the shelf water welders. Using this gas.
And is not disputed as being implosive. Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame.

That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant. Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-18

Hacking through the mangled spelling and grammar, you have changed the description of the experiment . Typical.

Oxygen produced by electrolysis does not, cannot lack electrons.

Oxygen can only be found in a form where is acts relatively positive when it is chemically combined with fluorine.

You ought to be careful making claims about "water welders" - if hydrogen and oxygen burned "implosively", then striking the flame to a water welder would immediately cause the flame to be drawn back into the gas supply with absolutely catastrophic consequences. You cannot have it both ways.

"And is not disputed as being implosive."

Yes, it can. I am disputing it. Provide evidence to prove me wrong, if you can.

"Furthermore, has even demonstrated that radioactive material can have its half life altered to a stable state quickly while exposed to this flame."

Oh, my, the claims get wilder and wilder! Is this another claim you are going to expect me to swallow whole, or can you provide a link to the evidence this time (remember, you claim all these things are proven facts, so you should easily be able to provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal).

"That aspect alone causes all kinds of monkey wrenches into what's believed to be a constant."

It might, if you could provide any evidence...

"Some even suggest this makes carbon dating not so much of a a accurate tool after all."

"Some"? Who is this "some"? I know people who suggest that the Queen of England is actually a reptilian alien, part of a global conspiracy to rule the world. "Some say" isn't even hear-say!

--------------------

With every post, your claims get wilder, your evidence gets scarcer and your credibility gets more meagre...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-18

This is from browns gas research that has already been conducted. There are plenty sources if you cared to google. The area in the vicinity of the flame is implosive. Have you never seen documentaries on tv where welding schools use them? The flame adjusts to the temp automatically to the material its exposed too.


As for oxygen loosing electrons. Of course it can. They are stripped of after the electrolysis has been done to separate the gases. Both Meyer and Puharich does this. You will realize what your missing when you follow his chemistry equations showing this exchange. I only have it in pdf. Let me try to find were I got it.

Thanks by the way for posting material. I was able to view my files but I couldn't get it to attach. I will try again.

Yeah, sorry for the bad grammar. Partly out of bad habit, partly due to using my cellphone to post from. This darn adaptive text is really frustrating.


By the way I do apologize for the exchanges. My only goal is to produce gas from water economically so that it can be used as an alternative fuel.
and again it doesn't take much effort to achieve that aim better than old school methods.

Did you get a chance to view JLN. Naudins website? This is one place that I have used over the years to attempt duplications. Good place to look over.

Are you familiar with the Bitorroid? Already seen and submitted to MIT.
It powers a load through reactive power. Yes thats correct. reactive power consumed on input side while real power use consumed on load side.

Sonoluminesence when first discovered had over a dozen theories as to explain. Now its down to just a few but even these guys won't put there stamp on they're theory. Hmmm something this basic still puzzles.
I work in the semiconductor industry with dry etch equipment. I service these million dollar tools. Have also spent a few years in refrigeration.
am degreed. But I have learned a few things that at one time I would have dismissed completely and now have questions. As some projects I have duplicated does not fit my education explanation. Yet work to some degree as some of the so called wild claims. Trust me I know how it sounds.
I am no pioneer and everything I have done was from attempts to put too rest some claims only to my supprise lead to more questions. Education definitely has some aspects wrong this much I have learned. What I found in the years journey is that I'm not alone even for engineers with greater credentials than myself.
go down this road and you find numerous educated ppl who don't ascribe to every aspect of how our current theory are explained along with our math.

This one does not learn while in school. You walk away from your education and and degree as if all of science is in unanimous agreement with how we explain the world around us from a physics view only to be surprised many highly educated ppl don't.


Thank God for that or we would never have moved out of the last two centuries.
many breakthroughs in science come from ppl not even an expert in that field but stumble upon it. If the experts had it figured out already why didn't they discover those discoveries? Such as in optics. Thanks to Raymond rife.

Dr kendal who worked with him almost got lost his medical license because he discovered the way to grow a bacteria culture outside of living flesh. And was attacked viscously to recant as science of the day said was impossible.
Thanks to him we modernized medicine. Rife self taught greatly added to optics.


Bottom line. Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. Until something better comes along that can reproduce and account for our phenomena areas simpler. The current model will suffice. Not by any means that its the end all on the topic.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-19

Mostly irrelevant, none of it answering the simple question: where's the evidence?

You keep claiming there is evidence, then you fail to present it, distracting yourself with the fallacy that other areas if science were modified, then any challenge to mainstream science must be correct.

You utterly fail to notice that the successful challenges were only successful because they presented large amounts of verifiable evidence that was properly peer-reviewed.

One erroneous gem stood out;

" Ppl loose site that any accepted theory is just that a theory. "

There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. Anything that is referred to as a theory has been tested to destruction, and nobody has been able to provide a better way of explaining reality.

Gravity is "just a theory".

Evolution is "just a theory".

The conservation if energy is "just a theory".

The claims for "HHO" are just a hypothesis, and one for which you have consistently failed to present any evidence.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-20

Oh really, how well did that tested to destruction work out for claims you couldn't exceed the sound barrier before doing it. Science said no can do.

I can here you now back then arguing it can't work with science quotes of the day. Lol.

There are tests done by ppl on youtube as well. Jnnaudin. Site.
Problem is you choose to doubt everything and not try to build anything period.

Wow has our educational system reallly declined that poorly that you are unwilling to investigate through experimentation? Big difference between you as a H. S. teacher and the teachers I had in high school. My teachers fostered thinking even if it went against the grain. They would explain why it wouldn't work but still be positive and encourage you to test the rules.

Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend. He encouraged The lad, to explore. This was an area that should not have worked. And the scientist was a colleague of Einstein. That led too two new discoveries.

Big difference between him and you as Teachers.

Dr. Andrija Puharich was a well respected scientist in the science community.
To claim that his fuel cell essentially the same as meyers version is bogus is plain stupidity. The man knows more than the both of us combined and then some with a record.

Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place? You asked so there you go.

Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb.

An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works. There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish.


Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement.

If Thats not good enough, this is what I would recommend.

Stick your head back into the sand. If that is what helps you sleep at night. So that you can teach the same material to your next class kmowing the world is still the same.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-20

Seriously, the "Gallileo argument" does not work - what science said about supersonic flight is irrelevant to what you claim about the basic laws of reality.

Consider; "Doctors said Dave would never walk after the accident, but he proved them wrong. They tell me I cannot grow back the leg that was eaten by a shark. They were wrong about Dave, so they're wrong about me."

That is the exact situation you are in.

Same as Dr. Bifield Brown to the Thomas Townsend.

Good grief, who told you that the Byfield-Brown affect was not supposed to work? Townsend noticed it, and explained it. I used the effect to build an electric motor out of plastic bottles. EHD has absolutely nothing to do with electrolytic over-unity.

And to claim that I am trying to stop such work is not just wrong, it is bordeline defamation - I keep demanding evidence, which requires that you (or somebody) does the experiments to gather the data.

Why ask for patents that you don't believe they are worth the paper their printed on in the first place?
So that I could examine them. I now have, and found them wanting.

"Truth is i do remember running into you on another forum. I will find it and post. You already had the patents as I stated earlier. But since I called you out, now your playing dumb."
That will be interesting...

"An experiment doesn't have to be performed by UCLA to warrant that it works."

True. It does, however, have to be performed with scientific rigour, and recorded in enough detail that the data can be assessed by third parties.

"There is more than enough proof available just within youtube alone. These are not all conducted by amateurs but with ppl more credentialed than yourself so don't be foolish."

Thank you, you just made my day - "it's on YouTube so it must be true!" Oh, my word, I actually laughed out loud when I read that (and when did YouTube users start posting proof of their qualifications?).

"Either experiment for yourself or wait to pass judgement."

I am waiting to pass judgement. I have been waiting for a long time, but you consistently fail to supply the evidence upon which to pass judgement.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-20

Nice try. But Jnnaudin website experiments are conducted by individuals by many that have BS Electrical Engineering or MS. They start off trying to duplicate a published claim or patent. Many work. Hardly amateur. Some of these only appear once enough circulation and interest has occured.

Yes from YouTube.your attempt to lump that site into the crackpot pile is false. Because other sites have also replicated some devices as demo on youtube.

Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share as ppl like yourself.
Yo make darn sure of that. Too lazy or inept to build an attempt

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-20

"Nice try..."
1. So what? Where's the EVIDENCE?

...YouTube..."
2. The one-many-fallacy again; some videos on YouTube are true, therefore all the videos that I want to be true are true. (If they are so good, why have you not provided a link?)

"Besides there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of place to share..."
Post a working model here.
Submit your properly-reviewed data to any of dozens of reputable science journals.

(PS: Finishing your posts with unfounded personal insults does not make you right.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-20

As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking?

Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-20

"As to why don't I post a link to a youtube video? Are kidding me?
You don't get YouTube in your neck of the woods? Seriously , you cannot go pull up a few on your own that resemble even the most credible layout to your liking? "

No, I cannot find any credible videos of HHO generators on YouTube. That is why I asked you to link to the ones you seem to know about.

"Dude, with each one liners of show me, solidly shows what kind of purpose you linger on this site for, and its most definetly not answers."

If I don't want answers, why do I keep asking you for them??

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-23

If you really wanted answers the first thing any honest person would do is get the patents. Read them and look over the electrical schematics.
Read all his memos and tech briefs. Look at the sources or even querry the proffesional sources directly about their results that they claim worked. Go find sites where crude examples are being built. Watch videos of units in operation.

For starters. Rather than thumbing over bits and pieces.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-24

Patents, as I have explained before, are not evidence a device works.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-21

And I tirelessly keep giving you places to view those.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-21

That is a blatant falsehood.

You post links to adverts, you post links to newsletters from interested parties, and you say "go and look at YouTube", then you accuse me of being lazy.

Until you can actually post some actual EVIDENCE, I am done with you. When you think you have some actual evidence (remember; peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal), then drop me a PM.

Until then, I'll file you under "Believer in Woowoo".

If you want a more sympathetic audience, a brief google (your favourite advice) reveals:

HHO Forums

Alternative energy forum

David Icke forum

(That last one is probably right up your street.  Enjoy.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kunadude (author)Kiteman2012-12-22

Let it be known to everyone following this thread was that evidence has been given as requested. On pages 4&5 and 14&15. Of WFC newsletter 11a. Found on the link I have provided. It gives the university names, the researchers title agency, the research center,and including UK Navy, report of confirmation of either a replication successfully done as claimed or an experts attesting to the validity of the electrical scheme.


Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie. Read through all the material documents for yourselves. And not just these 4 pages, if your honestly curious about this technology.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Kunadude2012-12-22
"Complete false and misleading assertions, that no evidence has been given is a bold faced lie."

t's a good job I decided to monitor you. Just because I have given up on debating with you until you provide the evidence for your claims, that does not mean you can tell lies about me or about what you have provided.

Reminder: the evidence required is a link to a proper peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal.

What you have actually provided so far:
  • Bald assertions.
  • Logical fallacies.
  • Accusations of laziness
  • Accusations of attempts at suppression.
  • Accusations of conspiracy.
  • Defamatory personal comments.
  • Links to adverts for plans.
  • Links to newsletters written by interested (ie biased) parties.
  • And, now, accusations that I have been lying.
"What is asserted without evidence can be similarly dismissed."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer