Save your time, Popular Mechanics already did this:
http://www...02932.html

By the way, they found that all the products didn't work. All of them. At best they made no difference. At worst, they caused the vehicle to catch on fire.

PM's test were mostly one-sided, and they provided little to no actual numbers in their results. Instead they use terms like "no significant increase". And the only time they provided actual numbers, was when something decreased efficiency.

For a handful of items that have been thoroughly tested and proven, visit www.eagle-research.com.

Wow!! I can't wait. With the way humor is used on the broadcast, this subject can be effectivelly addressed without rancor (Surf this web site for good examples). Plus I am sure your engineering backgrounds would play well in explaining why some of these devices don't work - and more importantly why many of us know that without ever testing them.

It can't get here soon enough. The Shysters never sleep!

Um.....I respect what they've accomplished, but they don't have engineering backgrounds. Ref: http://web...-0602.html

Interesting article, but they got at least one fact wrong. As longtime listeners to the show might recall, the "sleek black beauty" was, in fact, a '65 AMC convertible. I believe the late, lamented '63 Dartre was medium metallic blue.

Are these two going to actually test these devices in controlled testing...if they know how to do controlled testing....or are they just going to throw balogna back and forth at one another hoping something useful will come out of it?

my vote - bologna it's much funnier than scammers trying to fleese us. don't you think that if a product exixted that cost $10 and improved gas milage 20%. the manufacturers would already be using it to tout better mpg

"Are these two going to actually test these devices..."

Why bother? EPA, Popular Mechanics, a few States, and probably several other have tested them and found that they are at best useless and at worst reduce gas mileage. I'm for processed meat byproducts, too.

I'm another vote for 'balogna'.

Testing is a boring formality when it's obvious to anyone who didn't sleep through undergrad physics the 'super cyclone' won't work.

Let me say I was EXTREMELY dissappointed in Tom and Ray's response to the guy who was going to put an HHO generator on his car. I would have hoped they would have concentrated on the 2nd Law of Theromdynamics. Instead they focused the oxygen sensor and how that was going to screw up the function of the car.

But in all fairness: A few days ago I interviewed about a dozen people I work with on these devices. EVERY ONE OF THEM believed they worked. Not one questioned the reported 60% improvement in fuel economy I quoted as them having. None of them questioned why a Ford or a Toyota hadn't installed the devices on their new cars.

I know these folks aren't rocket scientists, but I was surprised that they accepted this possibility so easily.

See this thread to see that there is clearly a canyon between those folks that understand how the laws of physics apply in these situations - and those that don't:

http://act...47009.page

I am very discouraged!!

Stale link, CapriRacer. Please repost it.

And what leads you to believe that rocket scientists can't be fooled? The automobile is not their bailiwick. Rocket engineers; now that's a different story...

"I was surprised that they accepted this possibility so easily"

I wonder how many in that group think the Earth is 6000 years old...

"I wonder how many in that group think the Earth is 6000 years old..."

That's a matter of faith, not science. It is not subject to reason. Personally, I believe the earth is many millions of years old, but this is not something you can argue with. Those folks simply choose to believe something else. My MIL is not a dope, but she believes that the earth is 6000 years old. There's an irrational person in all of us; that's hers.

It's high time to experiment.

A couple years ago, I had a 2003 Honda Civic. Factory spec says it should get about 33-35 miles per gallon on the highway. When Hurricane Katrina blew in and made a mess, gas prices shot up to just shy of where they are now. So I tried a little experiment, and found that I could wring nearly 40 miles from a gallon of gas - in mostly city driving - by adjusting one thing:

The nut between the steering wheel and the seat.

My current vehicle is a 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer ES, about 40,000 miles on the clock. I've established that under most common driving conditions it gets around 30 miles per gallon, give or take. During the last couple of months the amount of lead in my foot has varied, depending on where I had to be and by when; and it's still gotten pretty close to 30MPG.

This week, I'm going to do the same thing I did with the Civic and see what happens. Take off gently, accelerate slowly, don't go much above 45MPH, slow down either by engine compression or by putting the transmission in neutral and coasting, drive without air conditioning when possible (I'm in South Carolina, so that WILL matter!), things like that.

you won't be saving much, if anything, by putting your car in neutral.

And in many states it's illegal to be moving on a highway while not in a "power-producing" gear.

Speeding is illegal too.

I keep seeing this (re power from water) floating around in my emails. Is it for real? Then where is it? I would like to see them discuss this... maybe it's been posted before but I haven't seen it.
http://www...PqekQyNr3M

No, It doesn't work. It violates the laws of physics.

Many folks will post that you have to give it a chance. Remember P. T. Barnum? "A sucker is born every minute!!"

How does the HHO generator "violate" the laws of physics? This is what jmorgan was referring to when he said "power from water" isn't it?