Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
But can it result in a measurable gain? I say yes and I am willing to stand by that statement. Are you willing to stand by yours? I am willing to bet you are not as sure of your science as I am of mine.
|
Changes in driving conditions and driving methods can give illusionary benefits ... but this device will not be the cause.
Too many conversion step losses ... it will NOT "more than compensate for losses" as you claim... nor be a "measurable gain" as you claim.
Take a real look at the additional 3 conversion steps you're adding.
#1> Chemical(Gasoline) to Mechanical -->
#2> Mechanical to Electrical -->
#3> Electrical to Chemical(H) -->
#4> Chemical(H) to Mechanical
The best devices I've seen that are custom designed to do each of those additional steps are not able to achieve .. "more than compensate for losses".
(Simplified) The best I can see would need to net ~1.28 Joule increase from Step#1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses ... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".
(Simplified) More realistic device would need to net ~2.08 joule increase from Step #1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".
Given the validated results we've seen on the amount of H needed for the amount of ICE improvement in the often sited NASA papers ... that just will NOT ... "more than compensate for losses"... nor will it be a "measurable gain".
- - - - - - - - -
And Yes I am VERY certain of the science.
I'm happy to walk through some of it if you like.
I am also willing to discuss the terms of a 'bet' ... Done correctly I am certain what the outcome will be ... are you ?
By correctly I mean ... no simple road test ... we need to remove conditions and driving method effects ... which means a good professional dino with before and after testing ... you say it's a "measurable gain" ... we need to measure it ... We need trusted witnesses from both sides at the testing to inspect for 'satisfaction' (agreed to prior) ... the required 'significant' winning test results need to be agreed to prior to testing ... and the total 'pot' for the bet would have to be more than 10% larger than double the total cost of the dino testing + any other 3rd party legal or arbitration costs... that way , after the dino tests are done the winning side makes 10% more than they put in... and there is created a well documented validated test result we can pull out the next couple thousand times someone makes these kind of claims... Those results would be a win for either side ... if the tests show it doesn't work ... that's good for that side ... and if the tests show it does produce "measurable gain" and "more than compensate for losses" ... that's good for that side... plus the 'winning' side makes $money ... To help reach the required total 'pot' size , we could use something like kickstarter to help raise the total 'pot' funding needed...If there does end up being too much legal issues with a pay out bet , then it might have to be reduced to just a measurable validated test results outcome... which I would also be willing to put a few kick starter $ toward such an effort... it would be a win either way.