Talk:HHO gas

message: 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)
replies: text: Move it to Talk:Oxyhydrogen then.   --Tbeatty 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of talk page after AfD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creation of HHO gas after deletion of Denny Klein 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: We NEED an article

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Hmmm, so fix it. Noah Seidman 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title: Grounds for keeping the article

message: 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. 
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  redirects to Pseudoscience 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Hydroxy" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The excerpt you have included on your website is linked to in the reference.  — Omegatron 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can you provide sources for that? John Vandenberg 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: No personal attacks please, either against people involved in HHO gas or other contributors! John Vandenberg 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Santilli Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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:    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:   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)

text: 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?   — Omegatron 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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:    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:   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)

text: 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?   — Omegatron 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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
*** Ordinary gas welding does not cause arc eye.  The dark goggles used for arc welding are much darker than those used for gas welding. Man with two legs 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional video 

message: # 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?
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: # 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)

text: # 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)

text: # 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  This is not a significant issue, you yourself can analyze the graphs! Noah Seidman 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Anomolous chromotography results 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Chromatography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  No evaporation? 

message: See for instance The Turk.☺▬█ ♪♪♫  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this one will be someday... — Omegatron 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about hoaxes can be featured articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "covering their promotion" and "veracity" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fix redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: . I added an anchor in Oxyhydrogen in case the section heading is ever changed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request