Date:         Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:42:19 -0700
Reply-To:     Neil2 <vidublu@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Neil2 <vidublu@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Water 4 Gas. com
Comments: To: miguel pacheco <mundopacheco@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <c280e73b0807161322y265202d5i719075e1d80b7ab8@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

And the response to a couple previous debunkers is:

"Many say they'll believe it if........ But they don't want to, so they
won't. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

Reminds me of the requests for Jesus to perform a miracle (or else). Fact is
they won't believe anyway.

Much better to keep an open mind until convinced otherwise and remain humble
until then.

The issue is not how "accurate" one can measure MPG. This is just an effort
to confuse. It's back to theoretical mumbo jumbo (pride).

As said before, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind
blows"

Experience > Theory

Hehehe, it's like saying NASCAR has no fan base, having never been to a live
race or seen one on TV. Whew! NASCAR is the 2nd largest spectator sport (as
far as attendance) in the United States!

As long as you measure under similar conditions the MPG comparison should be
acceptable to any honest onlooker. Doubting over a % or two diff due to a
suspect method of calculating MPG is splitting hairs for no reason. It's
just a weak way of trying to disprove HHO.

I could publish everything about my vehicles, co-workers vehicles,
our respective HHO testing methods and results down to a gnats arse and I
guarantee it would not convince everyone."

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM, miguel pacheco <mundopacheco@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Until someone comes up with solid evidence, this thread is just a sword
> fight.
>
> Miguel
>



--
Neil2
'86 Vanagon/Weekender in process (Savannah)
Nunquam Pendite Divendium