"and whether you like it or not, your past experiences have nothing to do with scientific provable data."

By definition, true science is supposed to be based on observation. Experience is a type of observation when one is attempting to experiment to collect data and find innovative ways of making new results. Experience has a great deal more to do with actual science instead of what people commonly mistake as being "science" b/c they read it in a book and then believe they have become scientific in their information. unfortunately a good many people who think they know what science is are actually those who have simply read the work of others, comment on others findings, and believe they have, therefore, a scientific background based on oroveable fact.

This is a fancy way of saying experimental, observational data is much more valuable in the real world than theoretical science. The value of theoretical science is that it can devise possible new concepts. But facts and true science are only based upon actual, hands on, experimentation. History is full of instances where the theoretical "experts" of the day "KNEW" something was proven science - but the true scientists who relied upon observation and experimentation of that observation, are the ones who find the errors/misconceptions and end up with solid proof.

"

I also take offense to criticizing what you call "theory". 95% of all design is done on paper..."

And this is where you may someday realize the true problem is. Emotion does not belong in scientific and logical study. Emotion is what leads to people trying to prove their own point rather than trying to find the facts of the matter. When a "scientist" sets out to prove their ideas instead of do experimentation and data collection (science) to find out whether or not their ideas are true or false, we end up with psuedo-science and a lot of misled people who start top read and follow the "expert" that publishes the work.

Taking offense at a statement made on a scientific subject is an automatic flag, to those who understand it, that emotion plays far to great a role and easily clouds the issues.

Why would anyone wanting scientific fact let their emotions flare when someone else's actual findings, something the offended person has never personally tested, not fall into line with the offended person's pre-conceived notions? A scientist is after fact. A scientist does not care if the facts agree or disagree with his previous ideas on a subject. In fact when a scientist finds out they are incorrect - if they are a true scientist, it becomes a moment of victory towards finding fact since they know what not to pursue! When confronting Edicson, a man deemed Edison's enormous failed attempts at making a light bulb filament as most people do - a large failure. Edison's response was that it was nothing of the kind. Instead he had discovered many items that were NOT usable as a filament! THIS is science.

But emotion has one other major thing it contributes in situations such as this. It can be an indicator that the person has a faith-like adherence to theoretical, not factual science. The human psyche gets emotionally involved/offended when is is proposed there could be a chance the entire truth is not known/they may be in error. The emotional response is a defense mechanism.

"Electrolysis and compressed gas tanks are both far more dangerous than the current systems."

This confuses me. I agree a pressurized gas tank is more dangerous. But you puzzle me on your comment about electrolysis. Anyone who knows how the electrolysis system works knows there is no reservoir of the gases involved. In other words the gas is made and used on demand only. Was you sentence/typing in error, or were you commenting on a system you are not familiar with? I do not

"

"This "theory" is so well refined that failure points can be calculated without ever even building the product."

And this is also why for ages it was mathematically impossible for a bee to fly - even early computer models said so. But we always knew there was something wrong with these statements. Faith in theory leads to things like George Washington's death. B/c the "Doctrine of Humors" was "known" as scientific, researched fact, the removed President Washington's "bad" blood to make him healthier, and instead killed him without knowing it. Sad story, but fun research in the history of science and the continued failures that "faith in science" has caused and will continue to cause throughout coming history. And the person who thinks our technology has come to the point it can save us from all similar (though more complex ) errors will be looked at in the future as being just as foolish as those top-level scientists who KNEW the "Doctrine of Humors" was true. Science history teaches many, many valuable lessons.

"Your "complex" process of electrolysis is actually a very definitive

science that can be solved entirely on paper.....since 1880. Computers

can even model the behavior of such a system on a molecular level if

required (can take weeks or months but is still possible)."

Actually, this is not yet true. I have a feeling this is simply an opinion you are offering without fact to back it. The facts of the matter (and yes, I have done the research including collaboration with three different University Physical Chemistry department heads) as to actually how electrolysis works on a molecular level. I was hpoping an understanding of it "from the electrons point of view" (in layman's terms) would clarify the process and allow modifications. The responses I got from al three department heads was that we know an electric current breaks the bonds, but we re not ure how the actual process occurs other than to make DESCRIPTIONS of the end results of what we see happening ie., electricity breaks the bonds and H2 and O2 migrate to oppositely charged electrodes. Obviously we know the opposing charges attract each other, but we do not know how the extra electrons are able to break the existing bonds. I personally theorize it is b/c of the molecules "pyramidal" shape and an unbonded pair, but cannot prove it.

SO... in actual life, no we do not know enough of why electrolysis actually works. Our normal descriptions are just that - description of what we see mixed with theory about facts we know of how opposite charges react. But we do not know the actual way in which the "mechanisms" act. Why does the molecule have its bond broken? What maked the electrons in their shared orbits "decide" (I hate anthropomorphisms in science!) to "snag" a free electron floating by? What mechanisms allow the bonded pairs/atoms to detect the free electrons form the current are somehow "more desirable" than the ones already in the bond? Once the bond is broken, why is the newly acquired electron not simply replacing the older one in the bond? there is more, but you get the idea. And, I can propose what seem logical theories for a lot of this... but none of them are science until proven by observations and being able to repeat the results continually.

And I have yet to encounter a person so adamant on saying these systems are impossible to work, who has ever been through this level of understanding/knowledge/study on the subject. And this is also why the systems are "complex."

"

The reason why big companies don't include this systems in vehicles

(despite their effect) is fairly obvious to anyone who doesn't have an

irrational attitude towards the scientifically minded."

Please look up the term ad hominem. By definition you have nullified any validity you have by putting in this (emotionally driven) statement and assuming someone else's attitude (which is scientifically impossible to know anyway). You sound much more capable than this kind of reply.

If you also will do some research on the car companies and gas saving ideas, you will find way back in 1936 a patented design for a carburetor that would get 200 MPG was bought out for some serious cash by Ford (2 million I believe - but would have to check again - and that was a huge price back then). And they went ahead and implemented it right? Wrong. They shelved it. Why would a car company pay 2 million to a Mr. John Pogue for his great idea and then shelve it? Could it be possible they did not test his idea before shelling out that kind of cash? Do we think they would not have taken him to court after the deal if the claims were false and the machinery did not work as they expected? Would two million dollars (remember - backed by silver money - roughly 1.5M ounces worth - roughly 31 million in todays cash) not have been worth going to court for them? the facts are they bough it and shelved it. We don;t know why. But after other incidents through the years like this I have to admit it makes me not have too mcuh faith that they have consumer interests as their highest priority over the profits they can make.