Jump to content

Talk:HHO gas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy deletion of talk page after AfD

[edit]

db-reason: G8 this page is being used as a discussion page for a non-existant article. Please take discussion to the redirected page. This page should be deleted. --Tbeatty 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HANGON

Much of this is relevant discussion which has happened, and in my opinion should be kept. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to Talk:Oxyhydrogen then. --Tbeatty 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Xoloz#HHO_gas_redux. — Omegatron 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of HHO gas after deletion of Denny Klein

[edit]

The original article was moved to User:Jayvdb/Denny Klein. Please copy the neutral, verifiable, scientific content from that article. I can resurrect other related articles, too, though mostly they are very poor quality. Starting from scratch is probably a good idea. — Omegatron 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We NEED an article

[edit]

I agree that this is a sticky situation, but in the meantime we need some sort of article on the subject. We can't just not have any information on the topic because we don't know everything about it. Why don't we start an article, say under "HHO gas" and put all previously gathered info in there? Doesn't Wikipedia have a "This information may not be completely factual" disclaimer?

Wikipedia cannot be unbiased if we just delete any information because it "may be a hoax". We need to report all information, and let people decide for themselves Littlebum2002 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that this needs an article, but it's just going to be deleted if you try. Gather as much factual, scientific information as you can on this talk page first and then we will get together a reliably-sourced article as quickly as possible before the censors can jump on it and bandwagon it to death. I can also undelete content from the deleted articles if needed. — Omegatron 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

[edit]

This article is related to another which has just been deleted for the third time. This article failed WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:RS the last AfD. Interestingly enough it and this article have been recreated without adressing those issues. Therefore I placed a {{db-repost}} tag on the page. Also I would like to refer to this discussion and this one. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the deletions were for invalid reasons. We don't delete articles just because they're about hoaxes. The admin who deleted Denny Klein said

This decision to delete the bio on Denny Klein is based on a lack of independent assertion of notability and is without prejudice to creating articles on the technology—whether the technology is valid or not (and my take on this is that it is not—reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion claims in its combination of science, scientists and lack of verifiable and independently reproduced results). I will make the deleted material available if someone wants to pursue a neutral article on any of the rest of this.

I've moved the page to HHO gas, which is a more appropriate title. Although it appears to be impossible to maintain these articles in a sane state, we do need to have at least one article about it.  :-/ — Omegatron 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state it still violates WP:SPAM, WP:NN, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:RS. If that is not addressed AfD is inevitable.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article doesn't violate any of these rules, outside of the fact that it isn't written that well. This has been explained in depth and ignored by a certain party(s) who wish to delete it arbitrarily. In fact, in light of the discussion on this page, the assertion that the entire article is "spam" is simply ridiculous. Majestic Lizard 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, so fix it. Noah Seidman 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is easy to rattle off a bunch of acronyms without actually providing any specific criticisms, isn't it?

Notability has already been addressed many times. This concept is quite notable and needs an article.

Why don't you redirect some of your energy towards helping me debunk this hoax instead of making disruptive AfD threats? — Omegatron 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for keeping the article

[edit]

This article is not breaking any rules. The subject matter, a form of pseudoscience, which has been aired on CNN and FOXnews is certainly notable.

In the other article referred to above, the material was inappropriate because it referred to a biography article. This article is not a biography.

The HHO article, also mentioned above is different than this article because the HHO article did, in fact, attempt to endorse a false science and advertise Denny Klein's interests. This article clearly does not. In fact, there has been some considerable effort to avoid any such supportive claims and to make the article as NPOV as humanly possible.

This article is substantially different than any of the articles mentioned by parties above, address the majority of the reasonable concerns about previous similar articles and does not violate serious Wiki guidelines, though it is a very rough article and needs work.

Any claim that articles on types of pseudoscience cannot be in Wikipedia due to being hoax articles (which they are not) is clearly laughable as there are articles on Water Fuel Cells, Phrenology, and other quackery. These are articles on hoaxes, not hoax articles themselves. This is a distinction some editors have difficulty with.Majestic Lizard 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
It does not violate the rules (article about a hoax, not a hoax-article)

The article is about a real subject matter that has been aired on many TV stations and published in many news papers. I did not make it up. Nor did any other editor on wikipedia. There are plenty of links to prove this. Video from CNN and FOXnews is available through the links.

It is a notable phenomena (CNN, FOX NEWS, PERIODICALS ALL OVER THE USA)

Seriously, this subject matter has received a ton of press coverage. Many people want to know more about it.

Article does not endorse Klein's claims (previous similar articles did)

This article specifically states, several times, that Klein's claims have not undergone scientific scrutiny and have been censured by credible skeptics.

Earlier articles using some of this material did endorse Klein's company and his claims as being real science. This article clearly does not.

Article does not endorse Klein's business (previous similar articles did)

This is just obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majestic Lizard (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article is substantially different than similar earlier ones

Some material has been salvaged but the article is largely completely different.

This article is substantially different than any of the articles mentioned by parties above, changes were made addressing the majority of the reasonable concerns about previous similar articles and does not seriously Wiki guidelines, outside of the fact that it admittedly isn't written very well.

Article does not suggest claims presented are actual science

The lack of credibility of the subject matter is stated several times. It is clearly associated with pseudoscience.

side note

Further, the claims by certain persons stating that the material about Aquygen (such as the website) was self-published by myself (since I am the only editor involved in its present creation) are not only ridiculous but slander and putative measures will be recommended against such persons if any such accusatory harassment continues, such as the possible removal of any awards such parties have received Majestic Lizard 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to concur with the above assessment of this article by Majestic Lizard. I don't see where this article qualifies for speedy deletion, especially not under the G4 criteria as recreation of deleted content. In fact, I think this article is the best attempt at including a discussion of this topic of the many previous attempts. This is not a complete endorsement of this version, but I certainly disagree with the speedy deletion request and am removing the {{db-repost}} request. As unpalatable as this is to me as the admin who closed the most recent AfD, if anyone want to delete this article, please take it to AfD. —Doug Bell talk 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. The need to delete is based on WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:DRV. Which refers to the 2nd AfD, and not the one you closed. Anyway, if in a few dys the article can't meet these criteria I'll file a proper AfD.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Any assertion that this page is "Not Notable" when it has clearly been proven that the phenomena was reported on CNN, Fox News, James Randi's website, and various news papers all over the country, obviously is an assertion made regardless of the content of the article or the discussions on this page.
2) The sources on this page don't need to prove that the pseudoscience is actually science. The sources only need to be reliable in so far as they demonstrate the phenomena exists. The sources on the page already do that, though they could be expanded upon. If an individual was to contend that the article has no "reliable sources", when articles from several news papers and the actual broadcasts from CNN and Fox News are available on the page, such a statement would indicate an obvious intent to delete the page regardless of its content.
3) An assertion that the page is "SPAM" would be completely ridiculous. Its an article about phenomena of pseudoscience that swept the media from 2004 until the present. This isn't the definition of Wiki-spam.Majestic Lizard 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4) Earlier articles describing similar material were entirely inappropriate due to the presence SPAM, POV statements, attempts by editors to make the outlandish claims by Klein appear to be scientifically credible, and due to being in the wrong category (such as a biography that clearly wasn't a biography). Because those issues have been addressed with this entry its irrelevant that the earlier, mostly completely different "pages were deleted."
5) An assertion, if one were made, that the current article is WP:NN, WP:RS, or WP:SPAM despite all of the discussion on this page enlightening otherwise would seem to be made regardless of the content of the article and ought to be taken to imply an agenda to delete the page for personal reasons, whatever those reasons might hypothetically be. Majestic Lizard 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Majestic Lizard, I hope you dont mind, but I have touched up this talk page so it looks a little more inviting to the reader. Bold looks like you are yelling, and that isnt necessary here, as the admins involved are being civil and giving the issue their consideration. Bear in mind that the admins are busy people, so the more fuss you stir, the more you aggravate the situation. For my own part, I am at work at the moment, so wont be able to assist much for a few hours. The most important justification for keeping this article will be reliable sources on the Internet, so I suggest that you scour the Internet for any references to "Aquygen" and list them on the talk page here, and organise them in order of usefulness and credibility. e.g., the youtube link on this article may be useful to the reader, but as a source it is not very credible, so if you can find another version of the movie, hosted by a news outlet for example, then that would be more beneficial. Feel free to throw the odd question either here or on my talk page , and i'll check every half hour or so. John Vandenberg 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I justed wanted it to be real easy to follow. Didn't realize it looked like I was yelling. It does look much better now that you changed it. The problem with Youtube links is that they get knocked down so often. By next week the link would probably be invalid. I'll try it though. Crap. Youtube is down right now.Majestic Lizard 05:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Randi's appraisal http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html#i3

CNN http://hytechapps.com/company/press

FOX news http://hytechapps.com/company/press

News in Florida http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2006/10/heres_a_truly_o.html

News in Kentucky http://wave3.com/Global/story.asp?s=4939560

Similar scam from a few years ago in Britain: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money-savers/article.html?in_article_id=403819&in_page_id=5

redirects to Pseudoscience

[edit]

Majestic Lizard, you created two redirects ( HHO gas and Brown's Gas ) that link to Pseudoscience. As far as I can see, that has a few issues.

  1. Normally, when a redirect is set up, the target page should mention the redirected term so the user knows why the ended up on a page with a different name.
  2. The redirect is making a statement of fact in the linking of those two terms to Pseudoscience, and there is no evidence that these two topics are Pseudoscience.

Obviously we have enough issues to work on at the moment, so we can worry about those two redirects later, but I thought I should point this out now before you created similar redirects. John Vandenberg 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree. Even though they are pseudoscience; pseudoscience is too general a thing for them to be linked to to. HHO gas should simply be linked to this page, since its the same thing.Majestic Lizard 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hydroxy"

[edit]

The article currently says that Hydroxy is another name for this substance. As we have an article that gives another meaning, this use of that name will need a good source. John Vandenberg 05:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same word but a different meaning. Here it is referring to an allegedly unique molecular arrangement of gas, which is not what the article you refer to is talking about. It might be appropriate to just delete that word altogether to avoid confusion.Majestic Lizard 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove it just yet. I've found one source that indicates that it is known by that name, so more may come to light. I also found a number of cases of it being marketed as Hydroxy, so I think it is important to mention it so readers can find their way here. John Vandenberg 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Santilli Article

[edit]

Omegatron, re include the peer review Santilli publication. Since the article requires it to be purchased to be viewed, you may also wish to re include the excerpt on the external website as well. Noah Seidman 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt you have included on your website is linked to in the reference. — Omegatron 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read Santilli is a crackpot who once used to be an actual scientist. Majestic Lizard 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources for that? John Vandenberg 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I currently read Majest Lizzard is a rouge Wikipedia editor that does not conduct due diligence. I may be wrong, but my instincts tend to agree with what these other people have said. Noah Seidman 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks please, either against people involved in HHO gas or other contributors! John Vandenberg 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have frequently visited discussion pages and threads on the internet. I have observed that when an individual makes specific, direct personal attacks against those perceived to advocate dissenting views it usually seems to be because the position espoused by the attacker is not strong enough to stand on its own. As such divisive pseudo-arguments based on logical fallacies and/or personal attacks are employed to illicit an outburst that might negatively frame an opponent in a discussion. Majestic Lizard 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conflict over content

[edit]

There has been a bit of conflict over the content for this article:

  • as at 19:19, 1 March 2007 by Nseidm1 (talk · contribs) the content was "overly" positive to the concept of HHO gas, and mentioned lots of early history, but removed lots and lots of current coverage.
  • Two minutes later, Majestic Lizard (talk · contribs) reverted back to the last revision by Majestic Lizard at 06:23, 1 March 2007. [1] This revert destroyed a bit of work by others
  • As I write this, Nseidm1 (talk · contribs) is attempting to merge both sides, hopefully ending up with a NPOV.

So far, Nseidm1's changes don't appear to need to be reverted immediately. Please discuss here first. John Vandenberg 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement on the first line of the criticism section. "The radical claims of Klein's alleged technology remain unscrutinized by any sort of peer reviewed scientific literature." Can I remove this, as the technology in questions was obviously published in a peer review academic journal. Noah Seidman 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for the peer review is in the first line of this article. Noah Seidman 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the scientific scrutiny you refer to was not of Klein's technology but of separate legitimate research on a similar subject. Klein claims to have invented a new process and a new gas, so previous research would not substantiate it. Majestic Lizard 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you leave it in there at this stage, as there is no need to rush this. Bring new facts to the table and add new content, and the existing prose will follow.
While this has been published, which infers a review by the panel, that doesnt imply it has been scrutinized by peers. Do you know whether any journal articles have come out since with detailed reviews of the journal articles in question? John Vandenberg 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it as recommended. No scrutiny has been published, as I keep up with the industry. That does not detract from the Santilli publication, because its not his fault, nor anyones fault that mainstream researchers have yet to publish scrutiny or support. Santilli published his work so that people will scrutinize or support it, its up to the scientific community to do this, otherwise the scientific material in the Santilli article must be accepted as is. Noah Seidman 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am

[edit]

Obviously I am a supported of the technology, but I also do understand how the Wikipedia system is supposed to work. I want to compromise, and I want this article to accurately represent the technology as expressed by Santilli, the prior art, Klein's competition, and the criticism. Note that criticism must be cited, and at this time the only reasonable criticism is the one about James Randi. Noah Seidman 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be justified to completely revert all of my recent edits. If you has a disagreement treat me with some dignity and prose questions or your opinions on this talk page. Note that the majority of opinions have been retained in the "criticism" section, which technically is the appropriate location for such material. Noah Seidman 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that "criticism must be cited"; it's that the article must be presented from a Neutral point of view. This is subtly different, and putting things in a Criticism section is not the right way to do this, contrary to popular belief. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

Also, please read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, since you apparently run a business based on related technologies. You're still free to edit the article, but you have to be extra careful that you're editing in a neutral way.
I'm glad you want to compromise. On a personal note, I'm disturbed by your phrase "supporter of the technology", however. Would you still support it if it were proven wrong? I wouldn't call myself a supporter or detractor of the technology; I'm just a skeptic who would like to know what's actually happening. — Omegatron 01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a matter of being proven wrong or right, I personally have chromatography of Brown's Gas that shows the exact same results as that published by Santilli. Science dousn't lie, the graphs, the data are clear. The molecules exist, therefore the gas behaves different than Oxyhydrogen. There literally is nothing to be proven wron, its just a matter of more scientists, other than Santilli, publishing articles on the same topic, the same method of production, and obviously criticism. As I've said many times its simply common ducted electrolysis, and that dam Fox News Broadcast really messed things up. The journalist provided BS information and interviews, it has made things extremely difficult. As for my edits to this article, as you can see I have retained all the criticism, there is nothing wrong with criticism, but the scientific aspect of the Santilli article must be expressed. Criticism belongs in the criticism section, as the entire article should obviously be focused around the Santilli publication. Noah Seidman 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noah, I am most interested in that publication and the journal article, but on its own it is not worth a Wikipedia article. There is much more to this subject than the current publication and you need to allow the other aspects to be given air time. I am only saying that as an "FYI" to reiterate what Omegatron is saying; I'm not accusing you of trying to suppress the other worldview. It is critical that we treat our readers with the dignity of providing them any related information so they can make there own mind up. So far I am pretty impressed with your willingness to point out your COI and keeping it in check. John Vandenberg 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an advertisement for Noah Seidman's business, nor is this article supposed to attempt to promote unproven claims as valid science. This page should be protected against attempts to blur lines between legitimate research and unproven claims intended to promote business interests. Doberman Pincer 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's changes were not attempting to advertise his own business; he has an opinion and is advocating it, and is doing so with his limited experience of Wikipedia in an orderly fashion. OTOH, your reversion back to Majestic Lizard's last edit was out of line and very puppet like. John Vandenberg 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Seidman's changes completely deleted much of the text that carefully framed the material in a NPOV light and attempted to falsely link it with legitimate research which did not support the claim that Klein's technology creates a gas with a unique molecular arrangement, nor does it support the claims Klein made about his technology. Seidman then attempted to use his own website (for his business) as a source. That is an obvious conflict of interests. Any contention that editors are sock puppets should be reported to administrators so they can investigate BEFORE such claims are made in this public forum. As anyone can clearly see I am perfectly capable of advocating my own points with no assistance from anyone (real or imaginary), though the experience and intervention of reasonable editors is appreciated.
It is my position at this time that certain partie(s) are interested in either (1) lowering the quality of this article in such a manner that the article will blatantly break enough rules to be deleted, or (2) use the article to make Aquygen/HHO seem to be a proven scientific phenomena in order to support claims advanced by private interests, which will also obviously lead to its deletion. NOTE THAT I HAVE MADE NO SPECIFIC ACCUSATION, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT MISS. I've worked the article into primitive, but reasonable wording that illustrates what is known of the phenomena in a NPOV way, only to have it repeatedly vandalized. I am not going to revert it again today.
Also, the assertion that the statement that Klein's technology has not been subjected to peer reviewed scientific literature does not need substantiation because it is a non-event. We don't go around attempting to substantiate that SOMETHING HAS NOT OCCURRED. What needs to be understood is that peer reviewed articles about similar conventional and proven scientific phenomena, such as electrolysis, DO NOT EQUATE the alleged original technology of Klein, nor alleged byproducts thereof.
So, I tell you what I am going to "attempt" to do. I'll change the article to an appropriate format, trying my best not to remove any tags or relevant edits. Then I'll back it up on my page. Today, I'll leave it alone and contact administrators so that they can keep an eye on it. If it becomes a joke and is deleted as a consequence, so be it (that is not a thread on my part). Not my problem. I will have been thwarted in my attempt to contribute constructively to the article. I'll live. Majestic Lizard 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lowering the quality of this article in such a manner that the article will blatantly break enough rules to be deleted

Aha! A conspiracy theory, but a plausible one. It seems like several different types of people want this article to not exist, so I assumed they had different reasons for wanting it. But maybe they are all on the same team, and just trying to keep the topic as obfuscated as possible and prevent us from debunking it? — Omegatron 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Since some people apparently think our policies about revert warring don't apply to them, I'm going to try to collect the references on the talk page so they won't be destroyed by further edits: — Omegatron 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papers

[edit]
  • Santilli, Ruggero Maria (2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water" (DOC). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31 (9): pp. 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006. Retrieved 2007-02-20. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Santilli, Ruggero Maria (2006-02-17). "The Novel 'Controlled Intermediate Nuclear Fusion' and its Possible Industrial Realization as Predicted by Hadronic Mechanics and Chemistry". arXiv:physics/0602125. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Mentions the clusters like H5 as not actually being molecules:

    DEFINITION: Santilli’s magnecules are stable clusters consisting of individual atoms (H, C, O, etc.), dimers (OH, CH, etc.) and ordinary molecules (CO, H2O, etc.) bonded together by opposing magnetic polarities originating from toroidal polarizations of the orbitals of atomic electrons. Numerous new substances with magnecular structures have been identified experimentally to date, among which we indicate MagneGas, MagneHydrogen, HHO, and others under industrial development.

Patents

[edit]
  • US application 20,060,075,683  — Apparatus and method for the conversion of water into a new gaseous and combustible form and the combustible gas formed thereby, Klein; Dennis J.; (Belleair, FL) ; Santilli; Ruggero Maria; (Palm Harbor, FL)
  • Also U.S. patent 6,673,322 and U.S. patent 6,972,118 about MagO and MagH fuel?
Patents (by Dennis Klein)
Patent applications (by Dennis Klein)

News programs/articles

[edit]

Self-promotion?

[edit]

Third-party reviews/criticism

[edit]

Other

[edit]
  • Browns gas on PESWiki (the history button is worth clicking).

Unsorted

[edit]

U.S. patent 6,689,259 U.S. patent 6,866,756


Comments

[edit]

(if this text is in the wrong place feel free to move it). The problem with Santilli's legitimate research is that Klein claims to have come up with a molecularly unique arrangement of gas different than anything else attempted before, through a special means of electrolysis that he has described, theoretically, but not demonstrably proven. Santilli's research could only be used as a source for how Klein's technology might work or where he might have acquired his idea. It can't be used to support Klein's claims, because it Santilli's research was a source for Klein's alleged technology, then Klein's claims would be contradicted in terms of the originality he claims.Majestic Lizard 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Santilli's research "legitimate".  :-) I was just trying to conglomerate all the references in one place and format them correctly with detailed info. — Omegatron 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Santilli's research does support Klein's claims in a direct way. They both claim that Klein's HHO gas is fundamentally different from both a regular oxyhydrogen mixture and Brown's gas:

In this paper the author (a physicist) presents to the chemistry community for its independent verification various measurements on an apparently new mixture of hydrogen and oxygen hereon referred to as the HHO gas (international patent pending) developed by Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc., of Clearwater, Florida (www.hytechapps.com). The new HHO gas is regularly produced via a new type of electrolyzer and has resulted to be distinctly different in chemical composition than the Brown gas, even though both gases share a number of common features.

But as far as I can tell, he doesn't substantiate this anywhere. He says they are different in the intro without substantiation, then whenever he describes a property of the HHO gas he says "as it is also the case for the Brown gas".  :-) The only mention in which they differ is this:

Note that the studies of the Brown gas [2] have indicated the need for atomic hydrogen. Therefore, the presence of atomic and polarized hydrogen is a novelty of the HHO gas.

But [2] is not a "study"; it's Brown's patents, and his distinction of atomic hydrogen vs atomic polarized hydrogen seems to be very weak circular reasoning based on his own theories. By "polarized" he means that the orbitals of the hydrogen atoms are aligned in a toroid with his "magnecular" whatever, which he claims must be the case because of "instantaneous melting of bricks" and "anomalous adhesion of the HHO gas to internal walls of detection instruments as well as to other substances". So melting bricks → toroidal orbitals → HHO "magnecules" → different from Brown's gas? Mmm-hmm... — Omegatron 08:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: He refers to the "specific weight" of the gas mixture in g/mol, but this is actually the "molar mass". And aren't these obvious mistakes? What kind of peer-reviewed journal publishes things like this?

On June 30, 2003, Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohi, measured the specific weight of the HHO gas and released a signed statement on the resulting value of 12.3 g/mol.

In fact, the conventional separation of water into H2 and P2 produces a mixture of 2/3 HBN2 and 1/3 O2 that has the specific weight (2 + 2 + 32)/3 = 11.3 g/mol.

— Omegatron 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange quote:

Unlike pure hydrogen gas, HHO gas remains highly stable, reducing the fear of explosions that often accompany pure hydrogen systems.

Linda Potter (Winter 2005). "Gadgets and gizmos" (PDF). Land Air & Water, Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection. 16 (1): pg.15. OCLC 20955733. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help) — Omegatron 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional video

[edit]

Here are some of the claims from the promotional video viewable on Youtube:

  • Environmentally safe
  • Water is the "source of HHO's energy"
  • (HO2 molecule mistake)
  • Scientists were exploring the use of water as a fuel. (Hah!) Normal electrolysis requires tremendous amounts of energy and produces little gas, so they gave up.
  • By expanding on older research, Klein now has this technology that was once thought impossible
  • No toxic fumes
  • No soot
  • No UV
    • Is UV present in other gas welding or just arcs? What causes UV light normally? Arc eye
  • Odorless
  • Colorless
  • Cuts steel 30% faster and with a smaller tip
  • Flame is 259 to 279 F when not burning anything
  • Reacts with whatever it is applied to and changes temperature
    • Steel 1400 degrees
    • Brick 4500 degrees
    • Tungsten >10000 F
    • Over 15000 in the lab
  • Emphasize safety features
  • Weld aluminum to aluminum
    • Is this unusual?
      • Probably misleading: the high coefficient of expansion means getting good results is hard because aluminium distorts as it cools and shrinks. I would guess that using "HHO" is just as bad. If I am right, you can use it to weld aluminium, but only if you are not bothered about quality. Man with two legs 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brazing (normally use two gases, now use one)
  • Corrosion inhibitor
  • Bonds with gases, liquids, and solids, diesel, gasoline
  • Improves "thermal content" of fuels
  • Environmental quality of exhaust
    • No CO2 in exhaust of car
  • Safer than hydrogen fuel cells
    • Why, because the hydrogen is not stored in the car? But the hydrogen is actually powering the fuel cell car. In this car it's just improving efficiency, supposedly. Completely illogical comparison.
  • Retrofitted to any car
    • example car is "1.9 liter engine with little modifications" (so they are not claiming that the water is the fuel. only the news programs did that.)
  • Hydrogen on demand
  • Alternator makes electricity which is fed to HHO electrolyzer
  • Injected into engine
  • Over 51% fuel economy

Most of these benefits are exactly the same as a standard water torch. We should only mention the ones that aren't.

I'm wondering if we should separate HTA's claims from Santilli's, since they only partially overlap. — Omegatron 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anomolous chromotography results

[edit]
  1. Noah, where are you getting this list of hydrogen/oxygen compounds? I don't see H5 anywhere in his paper, for instance. Is this original research?
  2. Why does this matter anyway? What does he claim is special about this? H2O2, O3, H2O3 and H2O4, for instance, are known to form during electrical dissociation of water or other processes.[2][3]
  3. This was measured in a GC-MS machine, which breaks the components of the gas into ions anyway to measure them. How do we know the graphs are being interpreted correctly? This is where a chemical analysis expert could give some input. — Omegatron 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Have you look at the graphs? That entire list is right off of the graphs. The X-axis is atomic mass!!!!!!! Noah Seidman 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is important because these additional molecular structures that result from common ducting explain the catalytic effects of the gas that are above and beyond the capabilities of a solely H2 O2 mixture of Oxyhydrogen!!. Noah Seidman 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Look on the chromatography graphs its clearly there... This is important because Oxyhydrogen is only H2 and O2. These different molecular configurations behave as a catalyst, and Oxyhdrogen does not behave as a catalyst!!! Noah Seidman 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theres nothing to interpret from the graphs, the X-axis is atomic mass. Hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1, and Oxygen 8, therefore diatomic Hydrogen has a mass of 2, and diatomic Oxygen a mass of 16. Look at all the peaks!!! There are many many different molecular structures in addition to H2 and O2. Noah Seidman 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The peak at 5 signifies atomic mass of 5. Given that Oxygen has an atomic mass of 8 this mass at 5 must consist of a 5 atom hydrogen allotrope. Noah Seidman 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you don't even know what the atomic mass of oxygen is, I find it hard to trust your interpretation of the graphs.

If Santilli didn't mention H5, then we can't mention H5. All we can say is that he presented graphs with a significant peak at 5 amu. — Omegatron 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh good call, I will update my analysis of the graphs. I simply was reading the wrong number off the periodic table. Noah Seidman 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a significant issue, you yourself can analyze the graphs! Noah Seidman 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the graphs even more important, because the peak at 16 must be monatomic oxygen. What an extraordinary notion. Noah Seidman 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatography

[edit]

On my website I have an excerpt of the chromatography graphs straight from the Santilli article. Under each graphs is an analysis. Chromatography Excerpt

Please guys this is simple stuff, there is no such thing as "special electrolysis". This is common ducted electrolysis technology that all started with William Rhodes, and Yull Brown. !!!!!Common Ducted Electrolysis!!!!!. The graphs say it all, and if you want to communicate with me my contact information is easily available on my website. Give a call, write an email, but please conduct due diligence. Noah Seidman 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Omegatron, your scientific correction makes the graphs incredible. Monatomic oxygen, how, why? Thats incredible. I have updated the article as per your suggestion above to only mention AMUs and not to mention actual molecular configurations. Noah Seidman 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear what this 'stuff' is - and how we must write about it.

[edit]

What the process does is to pass electricity through water - no more, no less. When you do that with DC current, you get oxygen bubbling off one electrode and hydrogen bubbling off the other. Conventionally, you would vent the oxygen to the atmosphere and store the hydrogen for whatever purpose you need. There is no need to also store the oxygen because when you come to want to burn the hydrogen, there is plenty of 'free' oxygen in the air. Storing just the hydrogen allows you to store a lot more in the same space - and with less weight. This is a viable (if energy inefficient) way to make a hydrogen (eg for a hydrogen fuelled car or something. Since the electrolysis process is typically only about 50% efficiemt and burning the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is also only about 50% efficient - you only get out about a quarter of the energy you put in - so rather then electrolysing water using a battery onboard the car - then burning the hydrogen, you are better off just using the electricity to drive electric motors (which are about 70% efficient). So a pure electric car is three times more efficient than some bizarre water electrolysis gadget.

However, if you use AC current (which both the Stanly Meyers and Aquagen folks claim to do) then the oxygen and hydrogen are formed alternately on each electrode - the bubbles that come off are a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and it would be tough to separate them. So those who claim to be able to 'fracture' water in some quasi-magical manner using high frequency AC current simply can't keep the product gasses separate. They get a mixture of regular oxygen molecules (O2) and hydrogen molecules (H2) in a precise ratio of two hydrogen molecules for each oxygen molecule - because that is the ratio you get in water (duh!). However, rather than accept that this is an almost fatal flaw in their plans - they put a label on this gas mixture - calling it 'HHO' (which I suppose is not a bad name for two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule) - and proceed to claim various properties for it.

But truly, two hydrogen molecules and one oxygem molecule formed from two molecules of water is the only possible outcome of 'AC electrolysis' - all of this bullshit about HHO and weird and wonderful hydrogen/oxygen 'compounds' is utter nonsense. If such a thing could possibly exist it would instantly and spontaneously turn back into plain old water. The chemistry of water is better understood than almost anything else in chemistry - we know what it is. I suppose it's JUST concievable that the substance they have formed is H2O2 - which is a more or less stable compound (Hydrogen Peroxide) - but if they did that they'd have a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen...still not magical though. Since Hydrogen Peroxide is a liquid - and this 'HHO' stuff is a gas, I don't think they have a new means for making peroxide.

The problem with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas (expecially in the ratio 2:1) is that it would be exceedingly explosive - very, very dangerous indeed in any quantities. When you mix fuel and oxidizer together - you'd better be just about to react the two together - because you're just asking for trouble otherwise. If HHO is truly a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen - then it's way too dangerous to use in any of the applications proposed for it. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

So, in conclusion, there are typically three highly unscientific claims being made here:

  1. That using high frequency AC current in electrolysis produces VASTLY more reaction products than conventional DC current. This ought to be easy to prove...any competent scientist could do the experiment and confirm or deny that the machine works 'as advertised'. Nobody has yet been given the opportunity to do this. Stanley Meyers claims to produce 1700% more efficiency than the standard electrolysis process - which means he's claiming to get 8.5 times more energy out of the process than he puts in. Where does this energy come from? There is never any explanation of that.
  2. That what you get out in terms of reaction products is some form of oxygen/hydrogen "compound" that's yet unknown to science. Again, they could gain instant notoriety (nobel prizes, etc) merely by submitting a small sample of this stuff for analysis in an independent commercial chemistry lab. If they did this - science would be convinced of their claims in a heartbeat.
  3. That burning 'HHO' produces enough energy to power the AC electrolysis unit - with enough left over to drive a car (for example). This violates the first law of thermodynamics - and since the reaction products are just water (which could be fed back into the fuel tank from the exhaust) - they will have invented perpetual motion - which is one of the most completely debumked ideas in science.

So Aquagen claims to have done three things that are each completely contrary to all that science knows of (respectively) electrochemistry, chemistry and thermodynamics...no proof of any of those three claims is ever provided for established, creditable scientists to check upon - no peer reviewed journal has ever published a positive article about this subject. All we have are completely unscientific reports from journalists and laymen.

That means that what we have here (even if it were true) lies far outside the realms of "known science" - though it makes scientific claims. So what should our article say? Well, Wikipedia has rules for this. This is (by any measure) a 'fringe theory' - and our guidelines on how to write about such things is clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I strongly recommend that every single person who works on or comments about this article (whether a 'believer' or an 'unbeliever') get very familiar with Wikipedia:Fringe theories before commenting further. Those are the rules and this article must stick to them.

SteveBaker 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So a pure electric car is three times more efficient than some bizarre water electrolysis gadget.

Although they say it can be used "as a primary fuel source or a fuel additive", they're really only stressing the "fuel additive" part. Their prototype car is never claimed to be water-fueled, but a "hybrid" that injects "HHO gas" in with gasoline to increase fuel efficiency. (The "fuel source" bit is technically true, anyway; it's just an inefficient "fuel source". Oxyhydrogen is, in fact, a fuel, as far as an engine is concerned; it's just economically pointless to generate it and then burn it in the same vehicle.)
That claim is also true of pure water. If you inject small amounts of water with the gasoline you can prevent pre-ignition and cool the cylinder and thereby get small performance gains - trouble is it corrodes the engine rather quickly...something which never comes up in these kinds of claims! Undoubtedly, replacing some gasoline with hydrogen will improve your gas milage - that's undeniable. What is strongly deniable is that there are net savings to be had here. It costs energy to make this "HHO" - and that energy cost will always be more than the gasoline savings. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you use AC current (which both the Stanly Meyers and Aquagen folks claim to do)

Where do the Aquygen folks say that they use AC? I hadn't noticed that before.
Yeah - I've seen that someplace...not that it makes any difference. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bubbles that come off are a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and it would be tough to separate them But truly, two hydrogen molecules and one oxygem molecule formed from two molecules of water is the only possible outcome of 'AC electrolysis'

I know it seems that simple at first glance, but it's not. As I showed in #Anomolous_chromotography_results, it is well-known in real, legit scientific literature that other compounds are produced during electrolysis, as nearby oxygen and hydrogen atoms recombine into stable molecules. The predominant byproduct is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen, but there are other things present. The Aquygen claims revolve around these extra compounds, and claims that completely new ones are being created. I wish the last rendition of the article hadn't been deleted; we had the beginnings of a decent explanation in there.
Those are short-lived molecules that you can only find if you measure very close to the electrode. You won't find more than trace amounts in the final product. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hydrogen Peroxide is a liquid

The other trace compounds, liquid or otherwise, would still be present in the gas due to vapor pressure, no?
True...but only gaseous molecules will bubble out of the reaction vessel - liquid products would stay inside the reaction vessel dissolved in the water (I believe). SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such a thing could possibly exist it would instantly and spontaneously turn back into plain old water.

Mixing hydrogen and oxygen gases together does not cause them to spontaneously convert back to water. You have to ignite them.
Have you any idea just how volatile H2+O2 is? The slightest thing will set it off. But I wasn't talking about that - I was talking about these more exotic (and hence much less stable) compounds that are hypothesised. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That using high frequency AC current in electrolysis produces VASTLY more reaction products than conventional DC current.

Can you provide a reference for this claim?
Meyers claimed it here [4]. Dunno about Aquagen - they seem to be sharply moderating their claims of late. But the trouble here is a fundamental one. If you get less energy out of the products of electrolysis than the electricity it takes to make it - then you might as well just use the electricity to drive whatever it is directly. If you get more out than you put in then you have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics and perpetual motion and other impossible things - so everyone points at you and laughs. Either way, you can't win. In the end, water is a very low-energy substance - you just can't win the thermodynamic problem by trying to extract energy out of it. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That burning 'HHO' produces enough energy to power the AC electrolysis unit - with enough left over to drive a car

I don't think they have ever claimed this anywhere, either.
Again, you are talking about Aquagen - this is an article about HHO - and Meyers most certainly does make this claim. SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to attack their claims and debunk them, but don't make up imaginary straw man claims. It can be fun to shoot down cranks, but don't get caught up in skepticism so much that you are no longer scientific.

no peer reviewed journal has ever published a positive article about this subject

There's one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (I don't know how reliable this journal is considered to be) by a controversial physicist which makes some crazy claims involving "magnetic molecular bonds", and this is the crux of the whole matter. Have you read the paper? — Omegatron 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference please! SteveBaker 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you inject small amounts of water with the gasoline you can prevent pre-ignition and cool the cylinder and thereby get small performance gains

Interesting.

trouble is it corrodes the engine rather quickly...something which never comes up in these kinds of claims!

Of course.

It costs energy to make this "HHO" - and that energy cost will always be more than the gasoline savings.

What makes that definite? It's not as simple as creating hydrogen and then burning it. Burning gasoline to run an engine is quite inefficient, so there's a window for net improvement. Whether it can be brought by something like a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be automatically bogus.

Those are short-lived molecules that you can only find if you measure very close to the electrode. You won't find more than trace amounts in the final product.

They claim mostly hydrogen and oxygen, but with some trace amounts of "anomalous" compounds.

True...but only gaseous molecules will bubble out of the reaction vessel - liquid products would stay inside the reaction vessel dissolved in the water (I believe).

We need a real chemistry/electrolysis/combustion engine expert in here.

Meyers claimed it here [5]

This is an article about Aquygen and HHO. Meyers has his own article, Water fuel cell.

In the end, water is a very low-energy substance - you just can't win the thermodynamic problem by trying to extract energy out of it.

Of course. But I don't think anyone's claiming that here. Their claims are mostly about better welding and fuel additives.

Again, you are talking about Aquagen - this is an article about HHO - and Meyers most certainly does make this claim.

Meyers is not involved with HHO. He had a different electrolyzer called a "water fuel cell" that he claimed could power a car. HHO is an unrelated concept; a gas created by Denny Klein and tested by Santilli which is claimed to have special properties beyond those of a standard oxyhydrogen mixture from standard electrolysis.

Reference please

It's the first thing in #References by Santilli. — Omegatron 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water injection (engines) — Omegatron 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are not bogus

[edit]
  • You can run a car on water
    • Just put a bunch of batteries in it, an electrolyzer, and a fuel cell, and use the electrical energy from the fuel cell to run an electric motor. Is this scientifically possible? Of course. Why are water-fueled cars considered a hoax, then? Because it's economically retarded. Anyone with half a brain can see that such a device would waste a lot of energy, and it would be better to just connect the battery to the electric motor directly. It's like using a battery to turn a fan to turn a windmill to create electrical energy.
      No - it's not possible. The electrolysis and subsequent burning of the resulting hydrogen is a horribly inefficient process. Such a vehicle would hardly move any distance before the batteries went flat. But even if it did run for a reasonable distance before the battery ran down, water would not be the fuel - it would be the 'working fluid'. In the same way, when we think of steam engines, we don't think of them "running on water" - we talk about them "running on coal" (or wood or something). To say that a battery operated car that works in the way you describe "runs on water" would be deliberately misleading. Given the horrible inefficiencies and complexities of doing things that way, the only possible reason you'd do so would be in order to make the claim to have invented the long-sought-after "car that runs on water". SteveBaker 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxyhydrogen/Brown's gas/HHO gas/hydrogen can be used as a fuel
    • These are all variations of the same theme, and can be successfully burned in an engine. This is the basis of hydrogen cars. The only reason these statements are misleading is because they imply that running a car on this stuff is economically a good idea, which it isn't; see above.
      Yes - if you could store the stuff safely - a mixture of molecular oxygen and molecular hydrogen would work as a fuel. But again, the only reason you'd do this would be in a deliberate attempt to fake something. In a practical vehicle, energy density is everything - storing the oxygen when there is plenty of the stuff around us in the air dramatically reduces the energy density - such that a hypothetical H2+O2 tank would only power the car for a fraction of the distance that a hydrogen-only tank would. Add that to the danger of storing the fuel (hydrogen) in the same tank as the oxidizer (oxygen) - and again, we arrive at a situation where no-one in their right minds would do this unless they were attempting some kind of a fraud. SteveBaker 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxyhydrogen/Brown's gas/HHO gas/hydrogen can be used as a fuel additive
    • They can certainly be injected into an engine. Whether it produces any beneficial effect remains to be seen, but seems plausible to me. Whether it produces any harmful side effects or is economically beneficial in the long run also remains to be seen. As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, plain water can be injected into an engine for enhanced efficiency; it just happens to destroy the engine in the process.
      True. SteveBaker 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxyhydrogen/Brown's gas/HHO gas/hydrogen can be used to weld or do metal cutting
    • This is the basis of the water torch. It's perfectly legit. The part that's dubious is when HTA says that HHO burns better or cuts faster due to its unique properties or whatever.
      Right - there are all sorts of strange claims made for what is in truth a very simple, well known mixture of oxygen and hydrogem molecules...but you could weld with it. 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Electrolyzing water in a common-ducted apparatus produces more than just hydrogen and oxygen.
    • As I've shown above, there's legit, peer-reviewed literature that shows that other things are present in the byproducts of this type of electrolysis. There's hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, water vapor, and trace amounts of other hydrogen-oxygen compounds, like trioxidane, hydrogen peroxide, superoxide, etc. The claims that are dubious are the ones that say this gas defies modern science.
      Such byproducts are either present in exceedingly small trace amounts - or are formed and then react into something else almost immediately. The complex and elaborate theories that these trace elements actually do something magical to the mixture of gasses have no merit. SteveBaker 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to focus on the claims that are actually (or might be) bogus. Things like:

  • HHO gas is different from oxyhydrogen because it burns hotter, doesn't burn your fingers if you touch it, etc.
  • HHO gas increases fuel efficiency
  • HHO gas has a number of unique properties, like "adhering" to solids and not obeying gas laws.
  • HHO gas contains "magnecular" compounds that defy modern science

Stating that something is "scientifically unsupported" is just empty criticism, and if it's directed at something that actually is scientific, like burning hydrogen in an engine, it's wrong, too. And don't make up things that HTA never actually claimed so that you can shoot them down. — Omegatron 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be empty criticism to invoke science if the proponents were claiming some supernatural cause (eg "Invisible Pixies imbue the water with fairie magic and that powers the car - so science is irrelevent") - that might well prove to be unfalsifiable and therefore immune to the scientific method. But the proponents of these things swath themselves in seemingly scientific terminology and make claims of a definite scientific nature. It is absolutely, 100% necessary to use the scientific method to debunk obviously incorrect claims that are phrased that way. You don't get to duck out of valid criticism by simply handwaving it away! If these things were in any way genuine - it would be a simple matter for their inventors to prove it to any and all sceptics in short order. A brief examination of the mechanism followed immediately by a clear demonstration of over-unity energy generation from a water fuel would easily prove the truth of these claims. The continuing refusal of their inventors to allow this says more about the fraud they are perpetrating than anything else. SteveBaker 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the same way, when we think of steam engines, we don't think of them "running on water"

Why not? I can imagine a layman saying a train "runs on steam". Steam isn't the fuel, so it's an inaccurate way to talk, but we need to respond to it appropriately, not just brush it off by saying it's impossible. We should say "this word usage is sloppy because steam is used as the working fluid". The way people edit this article, though, it would probably end up sounding like "Thomas Savery allegedly claims that the alleged engine allegedly runs on steam, but these claims have not been verified by the scientific establishment". It's ridiculous, doesn't provide any real information, and would never convince anyone who believes in this stuff.

To say that a battery operated car that works in the way you describe "runs on water" would be deliberately misleading.

Yep. But HTA doesn't claim a car that runs on water anyway. So, to say "a car that runs on water is a scientific impossibility" is an invalid criticism for two reasons. You have to explain what and why.

Yes - if you could store the stuff safely

It's not stored, though; it's used immediately after being generated, so only small amounts are present in the tubing. Even if it were stored, I believe it's possible to store stably under the right temperature and pressure conditions.[6]

But again, the only reason you'd do this would be in a deliberate attempt to fake something.

Yull Brown states in his patents that the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen needs to be very exact to prevent hydrogen embrittlement and oxidation of the metal being welded, which is why his gas generator mixes the two together before reaching the flame.

a hypothetical H2+O2 tank would only power the car for a fraction of the distance that a hydrogen-only tank would.

Exactly.

The complex and elaborate theories that these trace elements actually do something magical to the mixture of gasses have no merit.

They don't claim that these trace elements do anything. They claim that additional "anomalous" compounds are present that defy modern science. I'm pointing out that it is incorrect to attack that claim by saying "electrolysis only produces hydrogen and oxygen", because it doesn't. You have to address the "magnecular" compounds themselves.

You don't get to duck out of valid criticism by simply handwaving it away!

You don't get to duck out of legitimate criticism by making straw man arguments and then refuting them with "it's not scientific" handwaving.  :-)

a clear demonstration of over-unity energy generation

They don't claim over-unity.

The continuing refusal of their inventors to allow this

You have evidence of someone trying to test their claims and being refused, or are you just imagining that this is how they would behave? Have you read the journal article yet? — Omegatron 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

I have added this to the introduction:

The claims that HHO gas has special properties are strongly disputed by mainstream scientists.

I think it needs saying clearly. No one could reasonably dispute this even if they do believe in HHO. Man with two legs 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It would be infinitely better to include actual criticisms from specific people, though. Who's criticizing it? Which part are they criticizing? etc. — Omegatron 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sprinkling "allegedly" throughout an article about pseudoscience doesn't magically make it neutral; it just makes it stupid. Avoid weasel words.
  2. If you are going to sprinkle "allegedly" throughout the article, put it in places that make sense. "HHO is an alleged gas" is nonsense. No one's disputing the fact that it's a gas. They're disputing the fact that this gas has special properties. "HHO is a gas which is alleged to have properties that defy the laws of physics."
  3. If you can't find any mainstream scientists criticizing this concept, it's wrong to say "strongly disputed by mainstream scientists". "Completely ignored by mainstream scientists" is more like it. — Omegatron 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If HHO is a gas, other then ordinary H2O, you are certainly able to provide a source for that assertion, that is from notable, mainstream, and peer reviewed scientific journals. Till that time we'll consider it an "alleged" gas. Please understand WP is about verifiability, in other words: WP:RS. If it is impossible to keep some reasonable scepticism in the article it might be better to delete it. Thank you.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're incapable of writing from a scientific point of view, please stop contributing to this article. There is no doubt that HHO is a gas. Normal oxyhydrogen is not "unproven technology". These edits are absurd.

Please focus on the claims that the proponents are actually making (not bogus straw man arguments), and show why they are dubious. — Omegatron 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Neutral point of view and Avoid weasel words don't you understand? — Omegatron 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved here from my talk page.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This si known as a straw man, or was it red herring, anyway you still have not provided a reputable scientific sources debunking this hoax. Whether I have read your beloved policies is irrelevant to that fact.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monatomic oxygen = radical?

[edit]

What is the correct scientific term for lone oxygen and hydrogen atoms? Free radicals? Singlet oxygen? Monatomic — Omegatron 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the half-life of lone H and O atoms? Much less than a second, I'm sure. We can point to this in the bit where he claims to see both in the chromatography. — Omegatron 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

[edit]

If you want to help me make the article better, debunk the following claims:

  • HHO gas burns hotter in the presence of some materials than others
  • HHO gas has varying energy density.
    • If this is true, it defies all logic and common sense. How can something contain more energy in some situations than it does in others?
  • Brick and tungsten are melted/sublimated "instantaneously" by an HHO gas flame.
  • HHO gas adheres to other liquids and whatever
  • Gas chromotography shows components in the HHO gas with a weight of 5 amu.
  • The only possible explanation for these properties of HHO gas is that the gas is not made of normal chemical bonds, but "magnecular" bonds.
  • etc.

What evidence do they use to support these claims? What makes their evidence suspect? Did they misinterpret the chromatography graphs? Did they misinterpret infrared thermometer readings? How do these conflict with known science?

If you want to make the article worse, do the following:

  • Make completely legitimate claims and science seem doubtful
    • "allegedly a gas"
    • "oyxhydrogen is unproven technology" (Do I need to make you watch reruns of Mr. Wizard? Maybe take an elementary school science class?)
  • Add empty "scientific" criticism and other weasel words to every sentence in the article without addressing any of the claims that were actually made.

If you want to ensure that HTA continues to make lots of money selling products to gullible consumers with bogus science, do the following:

  • Try to get the article deleted, so that the only mention of this concept on the Internet is HTA's own website and crackpot forums.

Note that the bogus claims about HHO gas remained in the article unmolested for quite a while, taken right off the company's website, and only when I started debunking them did it get nominated for deletion. Who are these editors really working for? — Omegatron 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evaporation?

[edit]

Santilli claims that the describes the creation of HHO from distilled water at atmospheric temperature and pressure via a process structurally different than evaporation or separation, which suggests the existence of a new form of water. There is no evidence whatsoever that this process is theoretically possible or has been achieved in practice.

  • In the production of HHO gas, there is no evaporation process at all,[citation needed] the electric energy used being insufficient for evaporation.

Where is this from? What does it even mean? Conventional electrolysis is not evaporation, either. — Omegatron 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ah. In Santilli's paper, he says that the electrolysis process is "structurally different than evaporation or separation, due to the use of energy dramatically less than that required by said evaporation or separation".

Still doesn't explain what this even means. — Omegatron 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

See for instance The Turk.☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one will be someday... — Omegatron 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big no-no

[edit]

Removing tags without addressing the numerous problems is not cool. I restored them and don't remove the notice, nor the fact tags, without:

  1. Providing references from reputable scientific literature substantiating the sentence tagged.
  2. Making abundantly clear the topic is a hoax, therefore any caveat needs to remain.

Unless these conditionsd are met your repeated removal without even an attempt to solve these problems smells fishy to me.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please provide a list of neutrality and accuracy criticisms on this talk page before re-adding the disputed template. See that bit that says "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page"?
  2. If you're going to say in the article that this is a hoax, you must provide a reliable source. You must say which claims are part of the hoax, who determined it to be a hoax, who is behind the hoax, and its consequences.
  3. Your statement "Fuel based on water which is more efficient then others known today" seems to indicate that you don't even really know what this article is about. Have you read the journal article and news articles? — Omegatron 06:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough you don't have to supply sources. Otherwise I don't understand your removal of the tags asking for them. Yes, my additions are unsourced. Maybe that is why the AfD is started, this article is inherently POV and OR! There are no sources, which you know from the previous AfD's.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from my talk pageNomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Please stop:[reply]

  • Adding fact tags to sourced, undisputed statements
  • Adding "alleged" to things that don't need it. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples.
  • Adding "there is no scientific evidence for these claims", and other meaningless criticisms.

Santilli and HTA have made a lot of dubious claims. Please address them. Adding wrong and meaningless criticism is unhelpful, and you've been asked to stop many times. — Omegatron 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removing the tags without inserting references is disruptive. If there are sources simply add them to the sentence! The fact you don't proves there are no sources.
Hello Nescio. It's worth having a discussion on this if you will be very specific as to what's bothering you. Editing an article that discusses ridiculous claims is not easy, but we try to speak as neutrally and factually as we can about what's actually been asserted, and by whom. It is not Wikipedia that is making the ridiculous claims, it is the proponents of the theory under study. We can't suspend our NPOV rule whenever the subject is difficult. EdJohnston 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is more than clear and unfortunately people keep refusing to answer the problems.

  1. The claims are sourced.
  2. Criticism cannot be sourced.
  3. Following the previous points only proponents views are allowed and criticism removed as violation of WP:RS. Duh. That is exactly the point.

It is impossible to have a sourced critique, therefore we are left with unrefuted proponents calims. This is also know as advertising. This version clearly identifies the gas as a hoax. Unfortunately Mr. O disallows such explcit language and edit wars to keep a more "HHO gas friendly" version. That, and his reverting the deletion of this article he heavily edits is very troubling indeed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's impossible to find critics like James Randi, Dr. Ali T-Raissi, and Sieglinde Kinne, explain their criticism in the article, and cite reliable, verifiable sources for their comments?
I guess you're right. Why don't you just add completely unverifiable, meaningless statements like "reputable scientists ignore these claims", without any references whatsoever, revert war whenever anyone else removes them, and then claim the article is inherently unsourcable because you can't be bothered to find any sources for your own statements. — Omegatron 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<from my talk page Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)> Can you explain why you keep adding "news covering promotion" despite being reverted several times and asked not to? What does this mean and why is it relevant? — Omegatron 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to both comments

  1. Since when is Randi considered to be a reputable scientist? In other words is he a reasonable source to debunk the claims of so-called scientists?
  2. The news reports are not neutral and sceptical. They clearly are the result of "hey I have this thingy you might be interested in. What do you think?" WHich of course resulted in some unfortunate greenhorn to cover it and word by word tell us what Klein and Co have been saying. In the entire process not one independent scientist is asked of his opinion. Hence, we can see this as promotion and not as a independent, neutral and sceptical report.

Hope you accept the need to identify this as a scam and leave it in.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When something looks like a hoax, it's preferable to offer a serious refutation by a peer-reviewed scientist. You can't always find such a refutation. The question is what to do when the stuff looks bogus, but you can't find a refutation by a reputable person. You can't just say 'this is a hoax,' without attributing that opinion to anyone. In cases like this, if you are choosing to have an article at all, you need to write very carefully based on what the available sources actually say. EdJohnston 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(copied from Sethie's talk page)

Regarding [7]:

Why do you think that references 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21 and the others on the talk page don't count as newspaper articles? — Omegatron 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sethie only has an opinion about #11-18:

  1. ^ Craig Patrick reporting. Water Power (Youtube video) [Television newscast]. Fox 26 News. Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
  2. ^ Adams, David. "Florida's very own water fueled car", St. Petersburg Times, October 12, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  3. ^ "Water Could One Day Replace Gas", KSBI-TV 52 Oklahoma, May 23, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  4. ^ "Cars Running On Water?", KXAN, Austin, TX, May 24, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  5. ^ Flack, Eric. "Car Powered By Water A Reality", Wave 3 News, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  6. ^ Water-powered Car Technology Attractive to Many (Youtube video) [Television newscast]. Louisville, KY: Wave 3 News. Retrieved on 2006-06-30.
  7. ^ Flack, Eric. "Big Names Interested in Water Powered Car", Wave 3 News, July 12, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.
  8. ^ Flack, Eric. "Car Powered By Water A Reality", Wave 3 News, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-01.

His opinion is that none of these are: "popular science newspaper articles." Sethie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... So let's pick one for an example. Why is [8] not a popular science newspaper article? It's certainly an article, it's presented in an online newspaper, and it's written for a general audience about a science topic. — Omegatron 01:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Sethie looks at the link provided, it looks like the transcrption of a newscast, not an "article."
In wikipedia articles, especially ones about things considered fringe science, Sethie believes it is very important to be very clear about sources.Sethie 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article (publishing) — Omegatron 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"covering their promotion" and "veracity"

[edit]

Can someone else remove Nomen's repeated insertion of these "caveat" phrases in the news coverage section? Doesn't make grammatical sense, and is factually inaccurate since the news coverage is not promotional. — Omegatron 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fix redirect

[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please redirect this to Oxyhydrogen#HHO instead of Oxyhydrogen#HHO_gas according to the changed sub-heading there. —MoA)gnome (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now seems like it should be Oxyhydrogen#Klein's design. Maybe it should be unprotected if people are going to keep changing the section name. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the target article is weak in many areas, is poorly structured, and subject to regular and rapid change, and that the two subjects are in fact largely identical, I have retargeted the redirect to simply point to Oxyhydrogen. Happy‑melon 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I agree. The mainstream science for 'Oxyhydrogen', 'HHO' and 'Browns Gas' says they are all simply 2:1 mixtures of H2 and O2 - to attempt to distinguish between them is to pander to Fringe theory - which is not the Wikipedia way. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a hoax, it's a con.

[edit]

I posted this on the HHO page, but it's worth posting it here, too. '"HHO" is not merely a hoax; it is a con game, and the con artists are using Wikipedia to promote their scam. Take a look at this site (scroll about one screen down, to the screenshot of Wikipedia).

HHO should not "redirect" to "Oxyhydrogen" (nor should "HHO gas", or "HHO Gas"), because there is no such chemical terminology as "HHO gas". Water is referred to as "H2O, or sometimes even as HOH (reflecting the chemical nature of water, with the O joining two hydrogens), but never referred to as HHO.

This Wiki redirect is being used to steal money from people; it should be removed and then protected so that the con artists do not put it back up. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By giving HHO it's own page, we'd be indicating that it's somehow different from a simple mix of H2 and O2 - and it's not. Hence it is just another name for "Oxyhydrogen" which is just another name for "a 2:1 molar mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen". Hence it should be a redirect - that's what Wikipedia does when there are multiple names for the same thing. I agree that HHO is a made-up name that's put there just to make people THINK there is something magical going on - and we need to say that someplace in the Oxyhydrogen page. However, the term IS in common use - albeit by some pretty shadey characters. I also agree that selling "HHO generators" to people who are desperate to avoid high gasoline prices is a horrible scam. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - we are neither police nor fraud squad. SteveBaker (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. As a redirect, it gets people to the facts. HHO doesnt exist outside H2 and O2, and you can't run a car off it. I'd be thrilled if you helped keep an eye on this and associated pages, there are plenty of folks that insist on undermining these basic facts. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being picky. You COULD run a car from Oxyhydrogen. If you had a huge, high pressure tank of the stuff in the trunk of the car - with (say) 30 gallons of liquid oxyhydrogen - with appropriate evaporators to turn it back into gas sufficiently rapidly to stuff ten to twenty liters of the gas into the engine per second - then the car would (with appropriate modifications) be able to run on it. (My father ran a business in the UK converting taxi cabs to run on propane gas from a large high pressure tank in the trunk using the heat from the radiator to prevent the propane lines from freezing up as the gas expanded from the storage tank very rapidly...it was a very practical system and because of the way that gasoline and propane were taxed at the time - it was a VERY cheap way to run a car. Sadly, it didn't avoid the corrosion problem of Oxyhydrogen because propane also generates quite a bit of water as it burns.)
Of course, rather than doing that you'd do much better by storing only the hydrogen in the tank because there is no point in hauling around a hundred pounds of liquid explosive when you could haul ten pounds of (relatively safe) hydrogen and get the oxygen from the air - and you'd be better off reacting the hydrogen in a fuel cell and using the resulting electricity to drive electric motors than to use an inefficient ICE. So it's not a SENSIBLE way to run a car - but it is most certainly POSSIBLE.
What you absolutely CANNOT do is run a car by generating Oxyhydrogen from water using electricity as you drive along. No way. SteveBaker (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The primary editors of the pertinent articles are all basically on the same page. Between the edits to the articles and talk pages, over the years, we rationalized a good foundation for what information should and should not be included. We've also pulled together some good references. Wheres omegatron? He did a lot of work on these articles a year or two ago. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should get rid of that HHO redirect to oxyhydrogen. As stated on the HHO talk page redirecting a brand name to a page discussing a gaseous mixture is apparently unreasonable. We'll eventually find a way to discuss HHO, and other questionable material, but as of now we have no references to stand on. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I dont agree. If HHO is just a brand name for h2 O2 I doubt its notable, but it should at least be associated with its correct makeup, which keeps the scammers from claiming its something new and novel. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can place a link to the Santilli article where HHO is discussed. I think this may be a more appropriate redirect being that HHO is not discussed anywhere other than Santilli's publications. Noah Seidman (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HHO is notable. Do a google search on HHO and you get 5.8 million ghits. Search for "HHO gas" and you get 770,000 ghits. On the other hand, if you search for "Oxyhydrogen" you only get 142,000 ghits. Sure, this isn't a scientific way to determine notability - but it's pretty sure that the term HHO is used far more widely than the trademark. When a trademark (registered or not) is widely used outside of the description of the original product, then it becomes a generic term and the trademark is effectively useless. That appears to be what's happened here. So forget the trademark thing - it's irrelevent. HHO is (like it or not) a widely used term. I strongly support having HHO redirect to Oxyhydrogen. It can't reasonably be a separate article because HHO and Oxyhydrogen are the same thing - we don't want the main article to be called by the unscientific term "HHO" - so HHO must be a redirect to Oxyhydrogen...I can see no other acceptable way. SteveBaker (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

[edit]

Please retarget to Oxyhydrogen#Fringe science and fraud, to make it clear that HHO is not the term accepted by mainstream. Last Lost (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I added an anchor in Oxyhydrogen in case the section heading is ever changed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HHO_gas&oldid=1224930022"