h2o hybrid

[mwiener2]

I understand it does not work as advertised. (what does?)

 

My tires. My turbo. My intercooler. E85........ About 95% of the products I buy, or I return them.

 

 

 

O wait, Hydro4billion doesn't accept returns

[Guest heightsgtltd]

Non Sence

[AKLGT]

Uh no, that's not how it works. Great claims require great proof. It's the maker of these crazy products who's obligated to show proof, not the other way around!

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to get evidence of this device working. It's got a power switch, right? Set your cruise control for 50mph or so and run the device. Watch the MPG gauge. Then switch it off. Is there a difference?

 

Just because you see increased MPG with this system on doesn't mean the system works. I have a feeling that there are some airflow issues in how the system is installed that's causing your increased MPG. I would suggest logging AFR with the system on and off.

on a flat straight stretch at 60 mph YES. I already did that.... again, this is why I'm saying I don't understand why it's so hard for people to believe that it actually DOES work. No, I'm not seeing as much gains as I'd really like, but hell, I didn't trully believe I'd even see the 5 mpg avg increase I am. *shrug* I also don't believe all the claims most of these systems put out, however since I was listening to other people other than the manufacturer (and turns out the co that sells the Hydro 4000 don't even MAKE THEM), I was/am more willing to give it a shot. I do know that you can make your own system just as good or better for less $$$. If I had the time to do it, I would, but I don't.

 

I have come to the conclusion that you simply cannot have an actual controlled test for these damn things. It's already been proven that even if you slap this on a dyno or similar controlled type set up, it's not the actual numbers we'd see in the real world. Aside from going to a closed course, slapping the car in cruise at various points of speed, to get real world data will always be flawed.

 

Again, all I can do is list the information and data that I have logged myself. I am convinced this stupid thing works and since it's my money, than I suppose that's all that matters. You guys wanted to know the info, so there you go. I'm not surprised in the least that most of you who decided it COULDN'T work before this project now claim that it still doesn't because the information and data is somehow "inconclusive." That's fine. You don't have to believe it, believe what you want. I'm now done with this experiment and have moved onto the next project. If you guys want to continue to debate and battle it out, go ahead.

 

UNSUBSCRIBED

[mwiener2]

ok, so the conclusion is that AKLGT has convinced herself that it works enough to the point she felt she spent her money well, but she wouldn't recomend it to anyone else.

 

 

 

As long as she is happy I guess......

[erikvcl]

:lol::lol: out of :lol::lol:

 

Sure, my statement sounded dumb. But, as I've said before, there's too many variables in the installation.

[erikvcl]

on a flat straight stretch at 60 mph YES. I already did that.... again, this is why I'm saying I don't understand why it's so hard for people to believe that it actually DOES work.

 

I've followed this thread and the one on Nasioc closely. I've never seen you post these results.

 

was listening to other people other than the manufacturer (and turns out the co that sells the Hydro 4000 don't even MAKE THEM), I was/am more willing to give it a shot. I do know that you can make your own system just as good or better for less $$$. If I had the time to do it, I would, but I don't.

 

Again, why are you doing the company's work for them? Where's there conclusive evidence and theory of how the thing works. Why are we speculating here?

 

 

I have come to the conclusion that you simply cannot have an actual controlled test for these damn things.

 

Of course you can. That's silly.

 

It's already been proven that even if you slap this on a dyno or similar controlled type set up, it's not the actual numbers we'd see in the real world. Aside from going to a closed course, slapping the car in cruise at various points of speed, to get real world data will always be flawed.

 

It doesn't matter if you get real-world numbers on the dyno. What matters is whether you prove that the system works. That's a completely different thing. When you approach something scientifically, you have to have only one variable. There are way too many variables here and not enough evidence (e.g. AFR, dyno, etc.). I'm convinced that there's some other factor affecting the results -- that miniscule amount of hydrogen isn't doing anything. And if it actually WAS doing something, it'd likely hurt your engine.

 

You guys wanted to know the info, so there you go. I'm not surprised in the least that most of you who decided it COULDN'T work before this project now claim that it still doesn't because the information and data is somehow "inconclusive."

 

Sure, it would have been easier if you'd gotten worse results -- then even you'd be convinced that the system didn't work. The fact is that the science does not back up this device or devices like it. People far smarter than you and I have looked at this technology. Scientists with training, skills, and education have researched these topics. They have concluded that these devices don't work. If you believe some schmucks at a company with a multi-level marketing scheme over actual scientists than god help you. Maybe you believe in alchemy too.

 

 

That's fine. You don't have to believe it, believe what you want. I'm now done with this experiment and have moved onto the next project. If you guys want to continue to debate and battle it out, go ahead.

 

I don't believe what I want. I believe what a consensus of research says. Right now the consensus of research says this is junk science. If next week research shows otherwise, then I'll change my mind.

 

UNSUBSCRIBED

 

I don't believe it for a second.

[ViscousSquirrel]

I can't believe I'm chiming in on this.... but from a purely psychological point of view (my field of study) you tend to see what you want in anything. Hence a placebo, read sugar pill, works a solid 30% of time. Imagine that, someone replaces your pain killer with sugar and you’re so accustomed to it working, or want it to work so much, or whatever the reasoning may be, that you convince yourself it does.

 

Point 2, you’re not special. No one ever believes they would "fall" for the placebo just like no one thinks that they are ugly, or stupid, ect. We live in the real world and we know there are lots of stupid people out there, go ahead look around during your morning commute for evidence. Guess what, odds are, you will be that stupid person from time to time or believe in the placebo at some point in your life. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it is a good idea to recognize it. I have run a number of studies personally and can tell you that it doesn't matter what kind of person you are, or think you are, under the right circumstances you can convince yourself of anything.

 

Point 3. The self fulfilling prophecy. I once met a guy with a Honda hybrid who got better mileage with it just by keeping the displayed mileage readout up when drives. Why, because seeing it makes him drive the car differently, to the tune of an extra 21 MPG. He went from 45 to 66. There’s no magic in it, just psychology. You will also find that the simple act of telling someone to monitor themselves will change their behavior.

 

Point 4. The number one thing my students learn, and I beat this into their little college brains, is that in science CORRELATION DOES NOT NECESSARLIY IMPLY CAUSATION. There's a fun story I use on the Psych 100 students... there's a small town in England that has a high positive correlation between baby's and storks. For the social scientists among you we're talking something like a .89 here. The number of baby's can be readily predicted by the number of storks. However, that does not mean that stork count should be used as scientific evidence, because we all know that storks don't bring babies. There is a confounding variable that went unaccounted for. The more babies, the more trash, the more trash, the more storks. Isn't science fun! This is the most basic example I use. Getting to my point, let’s say that it's not a placebo, let’s say that you really do see an increase in mileage, you can't attribute it to the system you installed in the car when the scientific world already knows that it's BS, just like a stork brining the baby. It would be wise to find out what the unaccounted for confounding variable is. IE. you driving differently whether you realize it or not.

 

Point 5. Good science equates to the scientific method, repeatability and the elimination of all possible variables. In most cases variable elimination removes the researcher themselves, because just by sheer will they have influenced studies, sometimes indirectly and without their own knowledge. If I really want something to work, even if I'm as objective as possible in my own eyes, I'm going to see what isn't there, because I want to see it or influence others in the study because I want it to work. This is a simple sad fact of life. Enter the double blind study.

 

Thus anyone claiming to give an unbiased review is a liar; any person that thinks they can is a fool. Simple fact of life.

 

On to economics (not my specialty)

 

If this crap worked, automakers wouldn't be investing BILLIONS of their hard earned $$$$$$ trying to accomplish what this getup claims to do for next to nothing. Businesses are not fond of flushing money down the crapper; it tends to hurt the ol' bottom line.

 

And finally common sense.

 

IF IT SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE...GUESS WHAT, IT IS.

/rant:spin:

[DukeTrout]

Well said, VS. N=1 does not make evidence. Even with mild positive results, the system didn't make the gains that they claimed. Let's do a tally:

 

1. Works the way that is claimed (science behind it)? No

2. Works as well as claimed (increase in mpg)? No

 

So far, so good. Maybe we can get the Mythbusters to work on it?

[SneakyFast]

... you tend to see what you want in anything...

 

 

 

IF IT SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE...GUESS WHAT, IT IS.

 

Are you sure your not just seeing what you want to see here? Is it possible that your point here applies to both sides of this rediculous argument?

[DukeTrout]

Are you sure your not just seeing what you want to see here? Is it possible that your point here applies to both sides of this rediculous argument?

 

Unless you quoted the wrong part of his post, I don't see what you mean. The only reason I didn't unsubscribe a long time ago was to see the feasibility data that AKLGT was working on. If it showed some degree of feasibility, then it would be great to see more testing. I, for one, would love to see a way to get 40 mpg from a LGT without losing power. Heck, combined with E85, one could have cheap fuel, more power, and high efficiency. Win, win, win!

 

Unfortunately, AKLGT's data shows a tendency to discount the system, without showing it conclusively. She did not see anywhere near the gains that the mfr claimed. She saw gains that could be rather easily explained by random driving differences. So we're pretty much back to square one, except that there's one strike against the system in that, AKLGT's test showed that the claimed gains do not appear feasible.

 

My point is, even the skeptics here would like to see something come out of this test. We would like to be wrong, as we could all gain from that. So how are we seeing what we "want to see" when all we see is a system that isn't living up to it's claims, and as such, we cannot benefit from?

[DrCloud]

Well said. It would be great (however unlikely) if someone made a true breakthrough in combustion efficiency. But, as with these gizmos, it would need solid proof in the form of real-world tests and of a well-elucidated physical mechanism.

 

I'd sure like to get my hands on some of Dr. Bizendorf's Anti-Gravity Shoes -- they'd make my trips to the doctor less annoying, as he wouldn't bug me about my weight. But before I invest in some, I want to see proof, from an independent, controlled test, that they work and I want to know how.

 

Same with the Hydro Whatever. HPH

[SneakyFast]

Unless you quoted the wrong part of his post, I don't see what you mean.

 

V.S. made the point that sometimes if people want so badly to see something they will see it and dismissed AK's data as "wishful testing". I was trying to make the point that his preconceived notions about these products would skew his opinions of the test data in the very same way (just the other direction obviously).

 

Just thought maybe he should look inward with this comment.

 

We live in the real world and we know there are lots of stupid people out there, go ahead look around during your morning commute for evidence. Guess what, odds are, you will be that stupid person from time to time or believe in the placebo at some point in your life. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it is a good idea to recognize it. I have run a number of studies personally and can tell you that it doesn't matter what kind of person you are, or think you are, under the right circumstances you can convince yourself of anything.

[SneakyFast]

Unfortunately, AKLGT's data shows a tendency to discount the system, without showing it conclusively. She did not see anywhere near the gains that the mfr claimed.

 

Agreed, but we have seen this product tested 4 times throughout this thread.

 

1. Original Dino- Passed with flying colors

2. Road test before second dyno- Subject reported 20% better gas mileage.

3. Second Dyno- Showed 10% increase in mileage

4. AK road test- Showed 20% increase in mileage.

 

The test parameters weren't perfect but they all showed an increase in gas mileage. If you flip a coin 4 times, what are the odds of it coming up heads four times in a row... Crap on it all you want, but test results are test results.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[mwiener2]

^^ all those increases can be attributed to the vacuum leak creating a lean condition

[SneakyFast]

May I see your evidence of the vacuum leak.

[mwiener2]

The Hydro3thousand connects to the system after the MAF.

[SneakyFast]

I would think a vacuum leak large enough to affect mileage would also affect power. There was no mention of power loss withe either of the dino tests. The other road tester also reported that he felt his car had a little more "zip"

[mwiener2]

A lean condition will add a little more power..... but it's gonna melt your pistons sooner or later

 

 

 

People have been known to report their cars feel "zippier" after installing products like the Turbonator and Neon underglow lights. Doesn't mean they actually are.

[SneakyFast]

People have been known to report their cars feel "zippier" after installing products like the Turbonator and Neon underglow lights.

 

:lol:

[ViscousSquirrel]

Are you sure your not just seeing what you want to see here? Is it possible that your point here applies to both sides of this rediculous argument?

 

Wow, and we wonder why the world is in trouble. I see that you are putting that G.E.D. to good use. It wasn't even an argument, they're called the facts of life. If you haven't figured those out I'm afraid that arguing with you is pointless.

 

 

 

Agreed, but we have seen this product tested 4 times throughout this thread.

 

1. Original Dino- Passed with flying colors

2. Road test before second dyno- Subject reported 20% better gas mileage.

3. Second Dyno- Showed 10% increase in mileage

4. AK road test- Showed 20% increase in mileage.

 

(How about some consistency at least?)

 

The test parameters weren't perfect but they all showed an increase in gas mileage. If you flip a coin 4 times, what are the odds of it coming up heads four times in a row... Crap on it all you want, but test results are test results.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here.

\

 

 

Even a high school education should have given you some understanding of how a scientific experiment works. The point here is that a test result is not just a test result, it is much more, it's a whole series of statistics and confounds the methodology of which is quite important.

 

Please tell me you didn't go out and immediately buy 6 packages of Enzite just because someone claimed it could make your dick bigger. Of course by your logic it does, because I'm sure nearly 30% of people believe that it did. So what if their testing methods were comprised of staring at their member while they got an erection (just in case you haven't figured this out, it will grow when going from a flaccid state to erect state.)

 

This widespread ignorance allows snake oil salesman to continue to fleece the American public. It's called a con, though selling hot tubs I'm sure you know a thing or two about this, if not about science.

[erikvcl]

^^ all those increases can be attributed to the vacuum leak creating a lean condition

 

Exactly - that's why I asked AKLGT the question about whether or not simply turning the "electricity" or "power" to the system on/off (without changing anything else) had an effect. Although she claimed that it did, it's interesting that this test wasn't part of her original results. She's not monitoring this thread anymore so the world may never know.

 

I'm in total agreement with you about the vacuum leak theory and the lean condition. Is it possible to do real-time data logging of AFR on the Legacy?

[SneakyFast]

Wow, and we wonder why the world is in trouble. I see that you are putting that G.E.D. to good use.

 

I'm glad your working on a masters degree and they let you teach a class at your local JC but you've got some growing up to do there kiddo.

[ViscousSquirrel]

PhD stands for a doctoral degree, not a masters. The Abbreviation for masters would be MA, once again, get your facts straight.

[chenc544]

Interesting article in this regard.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydrogen-generators-wont-boost-your-mileage/

 

"If you convert 1 US gallon of water to hydrogen by electrolysis it will yield 420.6 g of hydrogen (H2 gas). If the electrolysis is 100% efficient it will take 16.821 kWh of electricity to crack 1 gallon of water. That 420 g of H2 only has an energy density of 14 kWh (33.3 kWh/kg * .4206). That's 16% more energy to crack the water than you get out of it. At 70 percent efficiency that means it would take about 24 kWh of input energy to produce hydrogen with 14 kWh of energy output."

[SneakyFast]

you've got some growing up to do there kiddo.