No, it's your problem. If for some reason you can't do dynamometer testing, a closed track would do the trick. A track would be a control. Replace your fuel take with a granulated vessel, go let's say 30 miles at 60mpg, once with the device on, once with it off.
"If you don't want to accept it or copy my work to verify it youself, that's your problem. "
Automobile manufacturers are required to submit EPA certified dynamometer tests to establish a baseline estimated fuel economy for their vehicles. You are expected to do exactly the same thing. These tests have CONTROLS in them so two identical vehicles will the same result within statistical margins.
Confirm your results, using EPA tests, get $1million from James Randi
"drove 60 miles/tank for 2 years. If 2 YEARS of driving doesn't establish a scientific baseline control. what on earth will"
dynamometer under controlled conditions. Seriously, I can't drive for 2 years and get the same results you do. There are variations in temperature, terrain, vehicles, DIVING HABITS, weight, pressure, you name it. It's rather why the EPA doesn't accept driving tests.
In fact you cult guys will give every excuse NOT to test under controlled conditions .
@wcemichael ... and about that university. When you approach a professional body like that and you demonstrate that this device works, you'll get a lot of attention ! You'll make a really big name of yourself ! They're absolutely acknowledge you ! And that's because Science respects its information source very much so.
But noone has done this, now why is that? Could it be perhaps that this WHOLE FUCKING THING IS JUST ONE BIG STINKING LIE FROM LYING QUACK SCAM ARTISTS SUCH AS YOURSELF ? daah ok.
@wcemichael That's not credible evidence at all! You're expecting others to simply take your word for it without proving valid evidence. The reason why you're seeing resistance is first of all, anyone who understand things like the Conservation of Energy, knows that it is not possible for a device like this to have any positive influence.
So that's problem number one. Second, car manufacturers aren't using this. You answer that with conspiracy theories. The list of crap from you goes on and on.
@a1mint 2 years baseline control AND somebody copied my work and got results. If you don't want to accept it or copy my work to verify it youself, that's your problem. I'm tired of beating my head agianst the wall named a1mint. I'm out of here.
" that's your problem"
No, it's your problem. If for some reason you can't do dynamometer testing, a closed track would do the trick. A track would be a control. Replace your fuel take with a granulated vessel, go let's say 30 miles at 60mpg, once with the device on, once with it off.
Your cult refuses to do even this.
MegaVelvetElvis 3 months ago
@wcemichael
"If you don't want to accept it or copy my work to verify it youself, that's your problem. "
Automobile manufacturers are required to submit EPA certified dynamometer tests to establish a baseline estimated fuel economy for their vehicles. You are expected to do exactly the same thing. These tests have CONTROLS in them so two identical vehicles will the same result within statistical margins.
Confirm your results, using EPA tests, get $1million from James Randi
MegaVelvetElvis 3 months ago
"I think 2 years would cover almost any condition you could imagine thrown at it"
So you concede your driving tests add conditions to the experiment, rather than adding controls.
MegaVelvetElvis 3 months ago
@wcemichael
"drove 60 miles/tank for 2 years. If 2 YEARS of driving doesn't establish a scientific baseline control. what on earth will"
dynamometer under controlled conditions. Seriously, I can't drive for 2 years and get the same results you do. There are variations in temperature, terrain, vehicles, DIVING HABITS, weight, pressure, you name it. It's rather why the EPA doesn't accept driving tests.
In fact you cult guys will give every excuse NOT to test under controlled conditions .
MegaVelvetElvis 3 months ago
@wcemichael ... and about that university. When you approach a professional body like that and you demonstrate that this device works, you'll get a lot of attention ! You'll make a really big name of yourself ! They're absolutely acknowledge you ! And that's because Science respects its information source very much so.
But noone has done this, now why is that? Could it be perhaps that this WHOLE FUCKING THING IS JUST ONE BIG STINKING LIE FROM LYING QUACK SCAM ARTISTS SUCH AS YOURSELF ? daah ok.
a1mint 3 months ago
@wcemichael This is the ultimate test right here:
- have an on/off button inside the vehicle that the driver can operate.
- drive at constant speed with HHO device off.
- for the remaining steps, ensure that you do not change the accelerator.
- turn HHO device on.
The vehicle should speed up.
- turn HHO device off
The vehicle should slow down to the original speed.
The test will have to be verified by an independent party. Approach a university that does energy studies or something.
a1mint 3 months ago
@wcemichael That's not credible evidence at all! You're expecting others to simply take your word for it without proving valid evidence. The reason why you're seeing resistance is first of all, anyone who understand things like the Conservation of Energy, knows that it is not possible for a device like this to have any positive influence.
So that's problem number one. Second, car manufacturers aren't using this. You answer that with conspiracy theories. The list of crap from you goes on and on.
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint 2 years baseline control AND somebody copied my work and got results. If you don't want to accept it or copy my work to verify it youself, that's your problem. I'm tired of beating my head agianst the wall named a1mint. I'm out of here.
wcemichael 3 months ago