JonStarbuck.co.uk

Run your car on water? Nonsense! It is a Scam!

with 34 comments

34 Responses to 'Run your car on water? Nonsense! It is a Scam!'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Run your car on water? Nonsense! It is a Scam!'.

1. Have you tried and tested this technology? Out of a MASSIVE amount of search results, yours is the only one I\’ve come across that says this is rubbish. Do you even know what you\’re talking about, when it comes to their claims? I think you\’d better watch yourself because publishing your opinions as fact is libelous and could get you into serious trouble.
   I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). Systems such as water4gas say they improve the efficiency of the fuel being burned - they don\’t claim to totally replace petrol or diesel. That would be foolish. To me, you sound foolish. You\’ve dismissed something offhand without even investigating it. What would you have to gain, we ask? Well, you\’re publishing a book on biodiesel! Isn\’t it worth seeing if this method of using HHO works with bio-fuels *as well* as with oil-based fuels? It seems to me that a little bit of cheap experimentation on your part could thrust you into the forefront of this type of research.
   Finally, I\’m well aware that you probably have the power to edit and remove comments on this site. I hope you have the courage to leave this up and prove me wrong. I will be checking back…

   Thanks,
   Phil

   

   Phil

   19 Jul 08 at 4:52 pm
2. Thanks for your comment, Phil. I promise not to edit or delete it in any way.

   The basic premise of what i am saying is that this “technology” is, at the very best extraordinary (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is not given) and is, in fact, clearly nonsense – you have not shown me anything to suggest otherwise.

   To address you points one at a time:

   • Have you tried and tested this technology?
     No, I no more need to try this “ technology” out to know it is bullshit than to visit the moon to know it is not made of cheese.
   • Out of a MASSIVE amount of search results, yours is the only one I\’ve come across that says this is rubbish.
     I have never seen any evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that any of this is true; you talk of “MASSIVE amount of search results”, please show it to me!
   • Do you even know what you\’re talking about, when it comes to their claims?
     I have a physics degree so I know a lot about thermodynamics and I am trained to approach things scientifically.
   • I think you\’d better watch yourself because publishing your opinions as fact is libelous and could get you into serious trouble.
     I am not in any way scared of being sued for liable over this; in fact bring it on! These guys are fraudsters, are you trying to say i am in the wrong for pointing it out?
   • I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). I understand that you cannot *gain* energy in any way. You can\’t run an engine on water alone - there\’s at the very least got to be a catalyst (which these systems do actually involve). Systems such as water4gas say they improve the efficiency of the fuel being burned - they don\’t claim to totally replace petrol or diesel. That would be foolish.
     Actually, if you read it, on the water4gas site it is pretty explicit in that you “burn” the “brown gas” and how it is “ignited by the strong spark” ……. and so on……
     Do you know what a catalyst is? Because I don’t see one. Their system claims to, one way or another, separate water in to H and O, introduce it into combustion chamber, burn it, and this results in water coming out of the exhaust/tail pipe. This is not a catalytic reaction.
     The water4gas site claims a lot of things, many of them nonsense and/or contradictory. This is a good example of this in that the “HHO” is both burnt and a catalyst.
   • To me, you sound foolish.
     Maybe sometimes, yes – but not in this instance
   • You\’ve dismissed something offhand without even investigating it.
     I have dismissed it, yes, but only after careful consideration and weighing up the available evidence (i.e. none).
   • What would you have to gain, we ask? Well, you\’re publishing a book on biodiesel! Isn\’t it worth seeing if this method of using HHO works with bio-fuels *as well* as with oil-based fuels?
     Who are “we”?
     I have nothing to gain here but I do hate scams and cons; and I have a special problem with eco-scams, eco-cons and people who see environmental problems and rising fuel costs as ways of defrauding people and making a fast buck.
     The HHO “technology” will not work, so it wont work with either biofuels or fossil fuels.
   • It seems to me that a little bit of cheap experimentation on your part could thrust you into the forefront of this type of research.
     I do not wish to have any part of this “research”; it is a scam, a con, it is fraud…. why would I want to have any part of that?
   

   Jon

   19 Jul 08 at 8:07 pm
3. Hi Jon,

   Going back to the basics of what I see on the websites (for the sake of argument, quoting water4gas), and what I saw you saying in your original article…

   Website:
   “You generate … energy by ENHANCING the EFFICIENCY of your poorly designed engine”

   You (paraphrased):
   “if the device operated as claimed the combustion cycle would start with water and end with water while extracting usable energy, thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics, a perpetual motion machine”

   My understanding of facts given:

   • Water is separated into components H and O, which are a combustible source. When Hydrogen and Oxygen react together, they release a high amount of energy whilst leaving H2O as the only exhaust material. I think we can agree that this is fact, based on hydrogen-cells which you have yourself mentioned should not be confused with the claimed technology.
   • Next, cars use oxygen sensors to ensure the best mix of fuel and air to run the engine efficiently.
   • The gases extracted from the proposed system are released into the air-intake system. This is simply adding a more combustible mixture to normal air. Have you ever seen a broken-down car being restarted by a mechanic squirting WD40 (or a similar product) into the air hose? It’s very common, as it creates a much more combustible environment than a simple fuel/air mixture does. Ask any mechanic - really!
   • The electricity which is used to separate the water molecules is a by-product of the fuel’s combustion. You don’t run down your battery to unusable levels by having your lights on, or listening to music with the volume jacked up, do you? The separation method uses less power than a lightbulb, with very little wasted energy. It’s an efficient system.
   • It’s well-known that an injection of N2O (Nitrous Oxide, or NOX to gear-heads) will temporarily improve the performance of the car - but not for too long because it becomes dangerous. A more passive mixture of another combustible gas would surely do the same without the dangerous consequences?

   There are probably more things that I can say, but I think that says enough to at least let you consider that this may not be some horrifc scam that’s floating about and making some bloke millions. It’s probably worth a try - especially if you have the information on how to assemble one of these kits at your disposal without paying for it!

   You asked what evidence was available? Do a Google search. I can’t find anything that says it’s actually a hoax or a scam except this blog page. Maybe my search terms are bad - I’m open to being proven wrong!

   You also asked who was ‘we’? We is me. We is the Royal We. We is the viewing public. It’s a figure of speech - no need for paranoia.

   I’ve heard of some guys in Cardiff who claim to have tested the system. I’m asking them if I can take a look. I’ll get back to you on it…

   Phil

   

   Phil

   31 Jul 08 at 4:30 pm
4. Hi Phil,

   You are confusing several things, comparing apples with oranges.
   The bottom line is as follows:

   Remember energy is neither created or destroyed, it takes energy to separate the water into H and O, this energy comes from somewhere, your vehicles electrical system which ultimately gets its energy from the fuel. Turn up you AC, turn on the lights, turn up your music and you will use more fuel.

   The energy it take to separate the water into H and O is greater than the energy released when recombining them - this is the first law of thermodynamics, it says you can’t, at best, get more energy out than you put in.

   (but of course the con men will come straight back with some other mechanism by which it “works”, it is all part of the scam, to confuse you into trying it for yourself.)

   It is a horrific scam and some bastard is making millions. On my recent trip up and down the west coast of the USA with Greenpeace I have been approached by a dozen or so people in three weeks asking me about HHO, I am truly shocked how many people know about it and can only assume that a lot of people have bought into it. We were just promoting solar renewable energy, these people who approached me know nothing about me or this blog, they are just asking questions and happen to ask me.

   I cannot find any evidence beyond the anecdotal to back up HHO, none anywhere.

   

   Jon

   31 Jul 08 at 7:48 pm
5. Hi Phil

   Yes it all sounds too good to be true. However, there will always be all sorts of counter arguements to how it might work. Without some sort of evidence of a reputable body having tried it and proving it nonsense, people will still want to believe it true. Like they say, actions speak louder then words.

   Mal

   

   Mr Malcolm Bellis

   3 Aug 08 at 2:55 pm
6. Hi Jon,

   There was a clip on national TV here in New Zealand about someone who had fitted one of these cons and run it for 3 months. His opening comment was that it had saved him nothing in the way of fuel and he had noted no change in performance.

   Why do people continue to think they can get something for nothing?

   Here are a few details for Mr PHil to ponder.

   - The alternator on your car consumes energy from the engine in proportion to the electrical load on it.
   - Car alternators are usually 50 -60 % efficient.
   - If you are running 15 amps thru this bottle of water your engine needs to generate at least 1/2 of a HP to run the alternator.
   - Your car engine is less than 50% efficient.
   - Hydrogen has only slightly more chemical energy per kg than petrol.

   do the calculation …………

   Russell

   

   Russel

   19 Aug 08 at 4:22 am
7. Hi Russel,

   Thanks for your comment, very interesting to hear that NZ TV has done a test on it, you don’t recall the name of the show or anything do you?

   I have just seen an advert on Facebook trying to sell me this shit - I am about to email them to let them know it is a fraud……… there is a shop on ebay selling it…….. this page is getting tones of hits at the moment too….. and loads of people have asked me about this “technology”……. people are clearly being conned by these people at the moment….

   Jon.

   

   Jon

   19 Aug 08 at 5:27 pm
8. hi
   i am student in engineering faculty/jordan i like search run your car on water i am need recourses about the subject can help me

   

   mah.rababah

   25 Aug 08 at 11:55 am
9. there is a One Million Dollar Challenge to who can prove this technology saves at least 25% of gas consumption.

   http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

   0 applicants so far! why? BECAUSE IS A SCAM!

   

   Sergio

   4 Sep 08 at 9:02 pm
10. Thanks Sergio, a great link!

    The great “run your car on water” scam”:
    http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml

    and other fuel saving scams:
    http://www.aardvark.co.nz/fuelsaverscams.shtml

    and a load of other great resources, info and good links.

    Jon.

    

    Jon

    4 Sep 08 at 9:09 pm
11. Hi guys, can I ask why you think the missile man is only offering the million for more than 25% ?
    Could it be he knows that up to 25% might be possible? I mean if it does not work AT ALL then why does he not offer the million on that basis? I think it would still be worth doing if you could get say 10-15%

    

    john

    7 Sep 08 at 9:27 pm
12. Hi John,

    Why are you suggesting there is some validity in this “technology”? It does not work, it is a scam.

    I am not sure why Aardvark have set it at 25%, but it has to be set somewhere and my guess is that any lower could probably be too easy to attribute an increase in performance to any number of other factors.

    Visit the link below and read the section at the bottom entitled “But I had a fuel saver fitted and it works”; http://www.aardvark.co.nz/fuelsaverscams.shtml

    

    Jon

    8 Sep 08 at 12:08 am
13. Hi Jon, It just seems to me that 25% is way of the mark. Given the rules that are attached I think it would be impossible for anyone to let’s say over inflate the tyres or clamp a magnet to the fule line ect. so all I am saying is that there seems to be a gray area here. I am not saying the system works! I am just saying the that 25% or above seems odd after saying it does not work at all he seems to need a real big safty margin!

    

    john

    8 Sep 08 at 3:20 pm
14. John,
    (Don’t get me started on theose magnet things! More snake oil.) I agree, all those rules do feel a bit like belt and braces, but if HHO works, and we know it does not, then the $1000,000 should be easy for someone to claim, and they have not.
    Jon.

    

    Jon

    8 Sep 08 at 4:28 pm
15. To be honest I actually believe in this technology but I dont trust all the websites.
    An engine is only about 30% efficient at maximum due to heat being lost through the cylinder walls. When water is added into the combustion chamber the heat turns the water into pressure and steam so a bit more of that heat energy is being used as power and not just escaping through the cylinder walls therefore the engine runs cooler. Plus there is the added bonus of Hydrogen being flamable. I dont believe you can run a car on its own like this I just think that it could help.

    Not sure about the thermodynamic thing here though. I know it is impossible to get out more energy then you put in but the fact that an engine wastes so much energy surely it can be improved.

    I would be intrested to see what your response would be.

    

    Sam

    11 Sep 08 at 12:55 am
16. Hi Sam, Thanks for your comment.

    I am intrigued by your use of the word “believe”, and I am intrigued by the but half these comments coming from the same IP address… but anyway…

    You are right, ICE are inefficient, about 25% efficient, but this not relevant, you too are confusing apples with oranges, which is not surprising as their websites are designed to be confusing and muddle different concepts.

    One is not injecting water into the combustion chamber (as the British did in WW2 with Spitfires and the like) one is introducing HHO (water split into its component parts) to be burnt in the engine / act as a catalyst / whatever…

    I am completely and utterly confident that this “technology” does not work a all, not one bit, it is a con, a fraud - and anyone who buys into it is being royally screwed.

    Jon.

    

    Jon

    11 Sep 08 at 1:23 am
17. For you to make false claims that a product does not work is ridiculous we have hundreds of very satisfied customers. We are in fact one of the few companies that are selling a unit that actually works reliably that why i have no concerns at all about putting my phone number or the parent companies name on the site. We sell a quality product that DOES increase fuel mileage, if you choose to believe the hype that the oil companies post about this technology than so be it but do not deter people who are not blinded by the big corporations from saving their hard earned money.
    If anyone has any question about this technology and how and why it works feel free to email me trevor@hhotek.com or call 828-748-7845

    thanks

    

    HHOTEK

    6 Oct 08 at 3:29 am
18. Trevor, I won’t deny you the right to respond to what I said about you, so your comment goes, and will remain, unedited.

    Your unit may be of the highest quality, I would not know about that, but I assure you it does not save any gas. I am sure you are a nice guy, I suspect that you, and therefore your customers, are a victim of the scam (one of the reasons I feel this way is because your details are freely available on the internet, another is that you respond directly to me as yourself).

    I have never seen any evidence whatsoever to back up any of the claims attributed to this “technology”, you hide behind pseudo-scientific words, conspiratorial theories, confusing and deliberate sidetracks but you offer no proof at all… this is all entirely consistent with scams, it is “smoke and mirrors”, it is a text-book model of how to run a confidence trick.

    Once again I ask the same simple thing, please show me some evidence that this works, because so far I have not been offered or seen any. Why is it so hard for me to see some? Because it does not exist, and it does not exist because it is a scam.

    Why do I have to email or call you with my questions? My questions are here in public but you, and everyone else, choose not to answer them.
    - how does it work?
    - where is the evidence that it works?

    

    Jon

    6 Oct 08 at 11:37 am
19. - how does it work?
    - where is the evidence that it works?

    to address the first question without going into extreme detail, supplementing hydrogen into your motor causes a more efficient burn of fuel. This more efficient burn of fuel enables the end user to lean there fuel back with devices suchs as EFIE,M&m, and o2 exntenders (i do not recommend 02 extenders it is possible for them to lean your car back to a dangerous point…possible but not likely) . The result of this is improved fuel mileage. for more details on how and why this works visit my web site.

    i will post up a detailed how and why later today (oct6)
    Proof that it works; i honestly dont know how to prove it to you i can take videos of a scan gauge in one of our test vehicles and you can visually see that the mileage improves but that not definitive proof without you having one on your personal vehicle and you seeing it work for yourself you most likely will not believe that it works i can show you results of what kind of increases we have had, but that still will not prove anything to you.

    if you have any suggestions about definitive proof please share them.

    Trevor Hunter

    

    HHOTEK

    6 Oct 08 at 6:55 pm
20. “supplementing hydrogen into your motor causes a more efficient burn of fuel” How? Who says?

    So you are using HHA along with other devices? This is not a fair test, changing more than one parameter at once. Running O2 sensor extender will (if they do what they say they do) cause your engine to run lean on their own, which will increase MPG (presumably at the expense of something else, such as peformance).

    Definitive proof is not something I could get from simply putting HHO on my own car. I swear that my car goes significantly faster with biodiesel in it even though I know it does not, my friend swears her car goes significantly slower with biodiesel in it, I am pretty sure she too is mistaken (true story BTW).

    Definitive proof is when you carefully, methodically and scientifically test a hypotheses, you record your method and your results, you draw conclusions from them and submit them for peer review, so we can decide for ourselves if it was a fair test and therefore if we believe your conclusions are reasonable - this is the basis of science.

    When one says things like “it works on my car, I used to get 16mpg but now I get 25″ it is not evidence because we have no idea if it was a fair test. You need to devise a test where all the parameters are the same, and your results need to be repeatable.

    At the moment your giving me as much proof as the average homoeopath, crystal healer or astrologer.

    In the UK you are not allowed to make claims about products or services that you cannot substantiate (except in very special circumstances), is it different in the US? Is it up to the customer to check if what they are buying is snake oil or not?

    

    Jon

    6 Oct 08 at 7:52 pm
21. Comment deleted by Admin:

    (HHOTec describes their testing procedure but supplies no results from their tests. They also offer to sell Jon a unit so he can test it.)

    

    HHOTEK

    6 Oct 08 at 8:03 pm
22. Comment deleted by Admin.

    (It was a long rant about the nature of truth and evidence, and what it takes to change people’s minds. See below.)

    

    HHOTEK

    8 Oct 08 at 6:00 am
23. HHOTec, with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

    I am deleting your two recent few posts, you are ranting and not making a whole lot of sense, I feel your trying the smoke and mirrors method of diverting attention from my point (that you have no evidence) and I shall not be approving any more from you unless they address this, the only relevant issue here.

    I know what I mean by “proof”, most people know what they mean by “true” - if you want to go argue about the nature of these please feel free to log on to http://www.philosophyforums.com and fill your boots.

    Meanwhile back on on Jon’s blog, you still fail to provide me with any (as in I have been shown nothing whatsoever) scientific (as in not anecdotal) and impartial (as in not you or me or your friend or your customer) evidence that any of this HHO stuff is anything other than bull shit.

    On your website you clearly state “Most applications will see far greater than 25% increase in mileage”, so why not take the $1,000,000 challenge ?

    Jon.

    

    Jon

    9 Oct 08 at 5:47 pm
24. Jon,
    Ok when you say proof what would be satisfactory proof for you i believe i asked you that already. I can email you excel spreadsheets with data. I can make a video from one of our test cars, video the scan gauge with the unit not powered up and then drive another 20 miles with the cell powered up and that would be proof. But i have a hunch that this would not be satisfactory for you either. So if you tell me what i can do to PROVE that this technology does in fact work exactly as i state on my website i will very gladly do it. If you can think of a way to Prove this over the internet beyond a shadow of doubt i would greatly appreciate it.

    

    HHOTEK

    9 Oct 08 at 8:28 pm
25. You have asked what would make good proof and I have answered; scientific impartial evidence. It should not be a big deal, you are suggesting that your device can improve fuel economy by 25% or more, multiply that by the billions of vehicles in the world, you should be the richest man alive, not wasting your time arguing with some bloke in the UK about the nature of truth and the definition of evidence.

    

    Jon

    9 Oct 08 at 9:14 pm
26. Yeah yeah yeah, this is nothing but a keyboard jockey who doesn’t know a thing about what he’s talking about. Your spewing of BS Opinions on the matter doesn’t constitute evidence or any type of rebuttal against the case of HHO technology. Heck, I’ve gone from 16mpg to 27mpg in my Subaru. That’s just with a simple homemade HHO system in a Mason Jar. Thanks for getting more awareness that this technology does in fact exist. Cheers from the States!

    

    fwwho@hotmail.com

    19 Oct 08 at 4:57 am
27. fwwho@hotmail.com, not only are you a liar and a fraudster (I have deleted the link in your post to your crappy water4gas clone website), but you continue to underline my point that it is not me that needs to prove anything.

    You see I am not the one making extraordinary claims, you are…. and yet you provide nothing but BS personal anecdotal evidence…

    Why do you provide no evidence? Because there is no evidence, because it is a lie.

    If you had really gone from 16mpg to 27mpg there is a $1,000,000 prize up for grabs, why don’t you claim it?

    

    Jon

    19 Oct 08 at 7:00 am
28. Brown;’s gas does indeed work. Water is turned into gas via electrolysis, is burned inside a car’s cylinders and the result is water. Brown’s gas supplements a car’s gasoline or diesel engine with clean burning water fuel so the cylinder can burn more cleanly and with slightly more horsepower.

    

    Charles

    7 Nov 08 at 5:22 pm
29. I don’t think it is a scam. I think it can be done with the right tools and competence. The products featured at [URL deleted by admin - it is just another W4g clone] are very useful and informative.

    

    ben

    12 Nov 08 at 2:19 am
30. I have looked at some of these websites and ebay adverts proclaiming this technology.
    All they want to sell you is a book on how to convert your car.
    If it was sucha brilliant and genuine breakthrough in fuel economy someone would be manufacturing conversion kits by now! Someone would have been on The Dragons Den looking for investment possibly.
    The fact that no-one has looks fishy to me (I\’m non technical) I wasn\’t born yesterday.
    Why has the motoring organisations, the AA or RAC taken an interest?
    I emailed Top Gear asking them if they would consider trying out the technology, ina similar way to them putting chip-pan oil in a volvo some time ago. A total absence of a response - I wonder why?

    

    david

    3 Dec 08 at 6:53 am
31. You know something Jon, I’m suprised you have that degree in physics. I only have an A-Level and I think I have a better grasp of it than you.

    [Comment edited by Admin - Agent K blathers on and on and on about nothing of any substance, he says nothing with any actual grounding in reality, he suggests that Jon does not know what he is talking about, he goes on to repeat all the usual nonsense about how HHO "works" and yet provides no proof whatsoever that any of it is anything but a con, he also suggests that Jon is not "open minded".... and suggests that his wife, who apparently has a PHD in Physics, is looking onto HHO.]

    Oil is running out and as a wise man once said, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

    

    Agent K

    22 Dec 08 at 8:40 am
32. Agent K stop wasting my time, your just another con man trying to bamboozle people into trying this nonsense. Please provide some proof or shut up, simple as that.

    

    Jon

    22 Dec 08 at 9:49 am
33. Nope not trying to bamboozle anyone! As I said, I ‘m getting in touch with my mechanic friends to build and test one mainly because my wife (+PHD) has gone through the physics and has said ‘It’s possible up to a limit’ so an increase in basic ICE running and efficiency is’t science fiction. Sorry but PHD in high energy physics beats degree in physics any day of the week. I’m sorry but I feel that there could be an attempt at an explaination but until the paper has been published you won’t be getting your proof, and I would guess that you have some idea of how long papers take to write.

    BTW Caps were added because even though basic 1st year degree physics were being explained to you, you were still not moving from your concrete boots position.

    I’m wondering if you’ve also thought about the implications of attempting to convert the planet to bio-fuels without another 2 earths to sustain the supply?

    I also am under the impression that Greenpeace have not endorsed the bio-fuel plan or willing to consider it because of that basic and huge flaw.

    While I believe firmly that alternative energy is definitely the way forward, perfecting a system that lowers the amount of fuel currently used until these alternatives become affordable is a definite step forwad. If anything you seem very closed minded to anything that is not in your company’s catalogue.

    The company you work for by the way also does not give prices for it’s products until you’ve registered your details with them. A tactic often used by scamming companies to ensure they have your personal details before you can say no to the price.

    Don’t worry Jon. I’m not going to try and explain anything else here on your site as you have taken it upon yourself to edit and delete anything that you do not agree with. Enjoy your ’little’ space on the internet where you can enjoy your fascist beliefs.

    

    Agent K

    22 Dec 08 at 9:57 am
34. What is this, Physics Top Trumps? It is irrelevant how well qualified your wife is, HHO is still a scam. There is no proof whatsoever that any of it is anything other than risible nonsense, it makes no difference if you are married to Einstein, HHO is still a scam.

    As for you comments on biofuels and Greenpeace and the company I work for (erm, who? I’m self employed!?!)…. what has this to do with HHO being a scam or proof that it is not? Nothing whatsoever.

    I will edit and delete comments on my web site which I deem to be deliberately muddling the debate – there are thousands of sites on the internet where you can prattle on about irrelevant tangential sidetracks and attempt to bamboozle in the style of confidence tricksters everywhere, but here on Jon’s Blog I am only interested one thing – what is true; evidence and proof – and attempting to draw me off in an irrelevant debate and calling me names will just get your comment deleted.

    Again I ask you for one extraordinary simple thing; to provide some proof.

    

    Jon

    22 Dec 08 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply