Why Obama/Romney never say HHO or Magnets for fuel devices

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

 

Petrol 400 MJ per 100KM
Hydrogen 500 MJ per 100KM

This response it irrelevent because you did not read what I wrote or if you did you did not understand what I wrote as is indicative you quoting me out of full context...

I knew you would have no idea of what I was talking about, so I explained it much better in this post.

You know nothing but your own ignorance. The response is irrelevant it is not even germane to the conversation . Read carefully what I wrote

Here is a hint: Hydrogen has an Octain rating of about 130 gas about 87

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by boncho

 

Perhaps you could dumb it down for the slower part of ats,me.

You claimed there is no suppression and i gave you an example of suppression.
What rational reason do they have to serve us such crap?

I explained the suppression. It was a very public form as there were millions of people protesting acid rain values in the 80s. They even made a kids cartoon based on pollution back then (which was getting out of control). -Captain Planet.

You should really visit China if you want to see a place that is lax in their environmental controls.

North America was heading down that route. Which is why a lot of chemical and industrial processes got exported there.

reply to post by hawkiye

You know nothing but your own ignorance. The response is irrelevant it is not even germane to the conversation . Read carefully what I wrote

Here is a hint: Hydrogen has an Octain rating of about 130 gas about 87

Was there something wrong in my math you wanted to point out?

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

You know nothing but your own ignorance. The response is irrelevant it is not even germane to the conversation . Read carefully what I wrote

Here is a hint: Hydrogen has an Octain rating of about 130 gas about 87

 

Was there something wrong in my math you wanted to point out?

The math is irrelevent it does not apply to what I actually said vs what YOU THINK I said.

reply to post by boncho


I will have to remember that one.
Acid rain protest in the 80's is the reason my new car gets poor gas mileage and inefficiency.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by boncho

 

I will have to remember that one.

Acid rain protest in the 80's is the reason my new car gets poor gas mileage and inefficiency.

More like the reason your kids might not get asthma. But whatever you want to tell yourself:

Many scientific studies have identified a relationship between elevated levels of fine particles and increased illness and premature death from heart and lung disorders, such as asthma and bronchitis.

Based on health concerns, SO2 and NOx have historically been regulated under the Clean Air Act, including the Acid Rain Program. In the eastern U.S., sulfate aerosols make up about 25 percent of fine particles. By lowering SO2 and NOx emissions from power generation, the Acid Rain Program will reduce the levels of fine sulfate and nitrate particles and so reduce the incidence and the severity of these health problems. When fully implemented by the year 2010, the public health benefits of the Acid Rain Program are estimated to be valued at $50 billion annually, due to decreased mortality, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits.

www.epa.gov...

I would say though the real reason your car gets low gas mileage is because you probably bought the wrong one. Since there are many out there that get great mileage...

See here. and here.

reply to post by hawkiye

The math is irrelevent it does not apply to what I actually said vs what YOU THINK I said.

I'm sorry, you didn't calculate anything in your post. You just made a blanket statement like always that has no context. Just like saying that hydrogen has a larger octane without mentioning anything else. As if it's supposed to mean something.

You said "hydrogen has better efficiency" and "hydrogen has higher octane"...

I supposed you believe fuel efficiency was better pre-1975 because gasoline was leaded then and it automatically gave better efficiency? Or what is it exactly you are saying...

Please enlighten me.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand fuels of higher octane. A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by boncho

I'm sorry, you didn't calculate anything in your post. You just made a blanket statement like always that has no context. Just like saying that hydrogen has a larger octane without mentioning anything else. As if it's supposed to mean something.

You said "hydrogen has better efficiency" and "hydrogen has higher octane"...

It means something to those who actually read and understood what I said. And no that is not what I said go ahead quote what I said I dare you because that will mean you will actually have to read it. However if you will understand it instead of auto-completing something else that strokes your emotional ego is another question...

reply to post by hawkiye


I laid it out in simple english, and simple math, that's more than I can say for you...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I laid it out in simple english, and simple math, that's more than I can say for you...

You laid out nothing relevant because I did not say what you responded too. You responded to your own false statements that you tried to attribute to me and the proof is when I dared you to quote me you made the mealy mouthed BS statement above instead... You keep getting soundly whipped in each exchange but are apparently to inept to even realize it and continue to embarrass yourself...

reply to post by hawkiye


So why didn't you point out what was wrong with my math point for point?

Well, it exists a technology with HHO cells and the advantages of this hydrogen generators help fuel combustion. This is a good alternative technology which will help you save money :-)

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

 

So why didn't you point out what was wrong with my math point for point?

Reading COMPREHENSION it not your strong suite apparently.... BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID... Is that clear enough for you? You continue to try and engage me in your straw man arguments and keep desperately posting BS when I don't buy into your BS. Give it up already its old and you are just embarrassing yourself...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

 

So why didn't you point out what was wrong with my math point for point?

Reading COMPREHENSION it not your strong suite apparently.... BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID... Is that clear enough for you? You continue to try and engage me in your straw man arguments and keep desperately posting BS when I don't buy into your BS. Give it up already its old and you are just embarrassing yourself...

edit on 28-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Why is it irrelevant? (It's entirely relevant)

And even if it isn't, are you saying it's not wrong? Are you agreeing that the system is highly inefficient?