Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitethoughts  Well who's insulting whom, Fullcrum?
Part of the problem is a set closedmindedness on this new technology. That is all I am implying.
But if you feel I'm insulting, not much I can do about it. |
First of all, infinite, I was calling BS to the company installing the conversion kit. My article was geared toward their exposure, including the civil liability they will be exposed to in the US legal system as a result of fraudulent claims. Nothing in my post was directed toward you.
Your post, on the other hand, was directed toward me. Frankly, even if it wasn't an insult, you haven't given me any reason to alter my beliefs in any way. My mind isn't closed. I'm skeptical not because I'm closed to new ideas, but because
there is no credible evidence.
Please give me some. I'd love to have some credible evidence to hold onto. I'd love to believe in this technology. I'd love for it to be true that I could slap a $200 conversion kit in my car and save thousands in fuel costs. I don't believe it, because the laws of physics indicate that it probably isn't true. The energy efficiency in hydrolysis will probably be at 70% or lower depending on how inefficient the hydrolysis is, and the majority of inefficiency in internal combustion engines is from waste heat. Burning hydrogen gas in with gasoline vapor does not create some new reaction. Rather, it just creates an intermingled dual reaction. The gasoline oxidization is unchanged. The hydrogen reaction is the same as I mentioned before. There's no scientific explanation for higher efficiency. Octane (the best example of a combustible in gasoline) is C8H18. Burning is C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O. C8H18 + 2 H2 + 26 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 11 H2O... chemically the same as burning the two elements separately. The one possibility for improvement would be to run the reaction fuel lean, using excess oxygen. This doesn't happen, however, because the oxygen created only balances the hydrogen created...
Back during the first oil scare in the 70's, these kits popped up the same way they are now. One big difference was that internet hype wasn't the same then as it is now. Whenever there is a shock to our security, especially when coupled with feelings of economic desperation, people will look for innovative solutions. This is good. Those are also the times when people scam others, when the predators come out to prey on the new technologies... I'm reminded of alchemy in medieval countries with crumbling economies. I'm reminded of Laetrile for cancer... I'm reminded of Steorn's measurement errors... I'm reminded of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (a law school classic).
I'd love for any of this to be true. I just don't think it is, and I think a lot of people are making money off of placebo, hope, and desperation.
The thing is, I see very little peer-reviewed science backing any of this up. What I do see are a lot of people making a lot of money. Ronn motors is one of the first to get into the securities industry, but their lack of SEC filings with the necessary due diligence and class action exposure is interesting. It looks like a very pretty stock scam. Honestly, if they had published the necessary documents to take the company public legit, I'd take another look... it's just that no company that I've seen has taken the double-blind peer reviewed jump into scientific credibility.
The science is doubtful. The motives of the people behind it are self-interested. I haven't met a credible scientist (and I have asked multiple chemists and physicists smarter than I about this) who buys it. The claim itself is a wild one.
I'll stick to my general rule of requiring some proof before believing an incredible claim from salesmen. Let us know how your experiences with the kit go, infinite.