Auto Blog Green apparently thinks they are above due diligence when it comes to hydrogen gas saver technology. Not only did they make a bold statement, saying that hydrogen on demand systems could not possibly work, but now they’ve published another post perpetuating this lie.

In politics and business there is an old saying that if you repeat a lie loudly, boldly and often enough, people will accept this as the truth. The truth is that Auto Blog Green continues to make statements saying hydrogen on demand technology cannot work without doing one test to prove their point.

Apparently, they have no interest in talking with the people on the water car groups that I’ve listed to get input from people who are using these devices and making them work well for their vehicles. Apparently putting their money where their mouth is and testing a hydrogen generator is too mundane for them. After all, they are only a green car website saying that this particular green car technology could never work, even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Please Auto Blog Green, talk to the Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company and tell them directly their technology doesn’t work and you can prove it. Talk to Hy-Drive Technologies and tell them that all of the trucking companies running their rigs on the road using hydrogen fuel injection technology are a bunch of big, fat liars.

And, while you’re at it tell Hypower Fuel, Incorporated that you’ve also tested their technology and all of their customers are lying as well. Better yet, just buy an ebook and try this technology on your own car. It would give you a bit more credibility that pompously stating that this hydrogen technology simply cannot work.

The correct response after you do this will be, “Yes, it works and I don’t understand why.”

I’ve talked previously about how the Washington Post and Popular Mechanics have dropped the ball on hydrogen gas saver technology. Now, I’m sad to say that one of the green blogs that I enjoy reading on occasion has done the same.

Auto Blog Green should have a red face regarding this post. Or, at least, they will in the future. In this post, Sam Abuelsamid, admittedly hasn’t tried the technology, but offers supposed proof of how it just can’t work.

Whatever happened to holding one’s biases in check until the results come in? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to the fair shake, the fair deal and giving something a fair shot?

Well, like I’ve pointed out on other parts of this blog and website, hydrogen gas saver (aka hydrogen fuel injection) technology has been tested and proven for over 50 million road miles with thousands of users on thousands of vehicles.

The part that doesn’t have to be proven is if hydrogen gas savers work, because they do. They only thing that has to be proven now is which device works better than the next. And, we can let the manufacturers and inventors fight out this question.

It’s sad to see Auto Blog Green go the way of the mainstream media with biases more important than facts and theorizing more important than testing. Now, if they would only run a few tests and report what has and hasn’t worked, this would indeed be a bit more credible.

On July 3, 2008 Mr. Allen wrote a column for Popular Mechanics titled “The Truth About Water-Powered Cars: Mechanics Diary” where he disrespects hydrogen-on-demand technology admitting he has never tried it, but is about to build his own electrolysis unit for the first time.

On July 20, 2008 Mr. Allen wrote an automotive question and answer column for the Boston Globe called “Drive it Forever” where he states with authority, “The output of these hydrogen generators is far too small to provide any significant amount of hydrogen or oxygen, anyway.” Really?

Does this mean the testing has been completed? If so, then show us the results. If not, then please shut your pie hole until you have some evidence to show.

Because Mr. Allen has so much crow to eat and face to save by this point one wonders if the accuracy of the test results (if he does ever show them) will be compromised? There is much motivation for not completing the water car testing or giving inaccurate information.

Then again if Mr. Allen is a man of integrity, he will take an about face in regard to oxyhydrogen generators and may just be one of the most high profile advocates for this budding industry. There is now a fork in the road. Let’s see which path he will take.

Now, how would I know that he hasn’t done his homework? It’s quite simple. In his reply to a reader Mr. Goss confuses an HHO generator aftermarket device with the mythical “water car” that doesn’t exist and never will. According to Goss, “It’s a very differnet thing to try to run an engine on HHO than to light a torch with it. The volume needed to run a car engine is many hundreds if not thousands of times greater.”

Whoa! Goss is talking about running an entire car engine on HHO gas generated from water. This is not the technology talked about in the eBooks on the subject nor is it the technology offered in the kits online. In fact, if Mr. Goss were a puppy I might like to rub his nose in his own pooh on this one and throw him outside.

This supposed 40-year expert in the automobile industry is speaking through his outer orifice about a myth and confusing it with a whole industry of legitimate devices. Apparently, Mr. Goss knows nothing of the National Hydrogen Association endorsement for this technology, the message boards filled with happy users of this technology and the hundreds of inventors recently who have come out with their own legitimate variations of the HHO generator within the past few months.

Now, if Mr. Goss is so freewheeling in his dismissal of HHO generators for vehicles, what else has he been factually incorrect about that needs to be rechecked over his 40-year history? The facts are in that HHO technology works in cars, trucks and other vehicles. The delayers and deniers continue to fall by the wayside. The only open question is how well can you get your HHO gas saver to work on your particular vehicle.

Of course, I should not single out Mr. Goss just because he writes for the high profile Washington Post. Many journalists, columnists and other media types have made and are making the same mistake. But, many also have been eating a lot of crow on this one and coming around. I’m sure the Washington Post like many other prestigious newspapers do not themselves like eating unnecessary crow. They generally expect excellence from the people they hire. So, let’s just set our watches on this one and see how long it takes Mr. Goss to retract or modify his statement. A quick response will be the sign of a true professional.

Nice fact checking there, not. The columnist started by talking about a different type of supposed gas saver called Ethos FR, but near the end of the article decided to hurl an insult towards hydrogen gas savers, showing off his own ignorance and with authority, I might add.

But, what was even more amusing than this is that two of his readers (at this point in time) took the columnist to task and corrected this misinformation he was distributing off the top of his most likely thinning head. Thin in research that is.

One of the readers is an advocate based upon his own personal experience of trying an HHO generator (hydrogen gas saver) himself and upping his gas mileage by 11 mpg. The other advocate talks about how basically H2O is a liquid and HHO is a gas and it shouldn’t be that hard to figure this out.

One of the reasons that hydrogen gas savers are not in all Pep Boys nationwide is that so-called journalists, columnists and other media types misreport the facts so often, stating their un-researched and misguided opinion as if it were indeed fact that the public at large is largely confused.

The saving grace is all of the people who do know about hydrogen gas savers and who are speaking up and correcting the media types about the spreading of misinformation about this technology that will surely have a huge impact in the near future in the automotive industry. This saving grace is an immediate solution available now and you will be hearing much more about it in the days and weeks to come, guaranteed.

I was expecting a little comparison and contrast from the writer to distinguish these two technologies, but basically what is there is an article about HHO generators sandwiched around a tangent about the Genepax car. The fact is, I agree with the writer’s point of view on the Genepax water car that makes wild claims without any independent verification of those claims.

But, when the writer speaks of hydrogen gas savers (HHO generators), he’s talking through both sides of his mouth. For instance, here is a remark at the beginning of the article, “Yes, you can run your car on water. All it takes is to build a ‘water-burning hybrid’ is the installation of a simple, often home-made electrolysis cell under the hood of your vehicle.”

At the end of the article, he states, “There’s no reason to believe that even more modest increases claimed by some of the ads could be achieved by a conventional, computer-controlled automobile engine running under closed-loop driving … I’m building a water-electrolyzer car – right now. The electrolysis cell assembly is on my workbench and ready to install, so stay tuned for the test results soon.”

What do you mean by “stay tuned for the test result soon”? You mean you make a negative claim about the hydrogen gas savers without testing a few first? What is really amusing is that the three reader comments that exist right now after the article, jump on the writer for his comments disregarding the need to lean the gasoline mix and knocking down a technology before he tries it.

Apparently, this writer hasn’t taken the time to do a little research that would tell him about the endorsement of HHO generators by the National Hydrogen Association, the 50 million road miles these devices have traveled with companies like Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies and Hy-Drive plus three very active online user boards filled with people building their own DIY systems with remarkable success.

Perhaps I’m expecting too much from Popular Mechanics when it comes to doing a little research and valuing fact over personal bias in their reporting.