Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyjd
So can we assume are the same events? You concluded that a 100 mile round trip testing was good evidence? Why not make the claim over 70mpg initially if that is what was found in the supporting cases? Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?
Edit: Read this before posting further if you want to know what we here at ecomodder expect from testing criteria. http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html |
First I have read the how-properly-test-modifications
Second I used 100 Mile test run as a proofing run, to see if we were seeing any improvements.
And as we were NOT trying to prove a 10 to 30% change but looking for 50 to 1005 changes we felt these short runs showed if we were getting there.
The major frustration WAS that in both cases the car's owner took off the next day and did not allow us to do a 300 plus round trip to Blithe CA and back to Phoenix as real test.
And the one that hunts me to this day was the one that drove to Flagstaff from Phoenix after we got two readings of 56 and 76 MPG and called to complain he did not get great MPG, that he ONLY got 56MPG driving UPHILL, and threaten to stop payment on his check. When I pointed out he had driven UPHILL he said he will try again.
He then drove to Albuquerque New Mexico and called again with the same complaint and threat, (56 MPG and stop payment) but when I talked with him we found out he was running low of water in his HHO system.
He then shame faced said he was sorry. he had forgotten to refill the water tank when he got gas in Flagstaff.
We sadly never hear back from him. His check cleared.
The second car when from 32 MPG to a reading of 76 MPG, but the next day it would not run due to a stuck idle motor and once repaired the owner also took off, and he tried to improve on what his in car gauge said and totally mess things up. But the time he got back to CA his 32 MPG we now 26 MPG...
Oh well. At that point we had our own HAFCs to try but we did not have any suitable cars.
"Do you think that the reason for mixed results might have been unrepeatable conditions, and tank fill errors when only 2 of 14 experiments "seemed" to have produced a result?"
Yes we did we were using dip sticks to fill the tank to a point that we could mark on the dip sticks put into the tank by the filler tube so we believed we got the same "fill" each time.
And we used the same road and time of day within a couple of days apart that we first test the same car and proved it got 32 MPG Stock.
As we did not have a dymo this was the best we could do.
And again we got very large results...
And if we were fooling ourselves, then we should have gotten better results from more of the other cars, but we didn't we even saw lower MPG due to our work on one or two cars, which I feel proved we were doing thing right.
Rich