[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Thanks for nailing at least that much detail down.


Assuming it is not a variation of a 6 cycle style ICE ... I'm curious if you realize that with just that much ... you've already put yourself into the corner of needing to produce significantly more than a 20% improvement to BSFC? ... as shown on a good proper dino as I outlined? ... And if you intend on going Lean Burn (as I suspect you are) you may also have to be able to sustain smooth ICE operation bellow 30% ICE Load and above 90% ICE Load and sustain that smooth ICE operation at over 25.8:1 AFR... So I'm curious if you already knew how high you've already set the bar on yourself?



Bold = NO!

I was clear on this point and explained it previously in 2 previous posts already. It is not 'good enough'.

Your #1 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.



See above.
Your #2 proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.



Your #3 Proposed change to the terms is = Rejected.

Bet $ is as was previously outlined , funds needed to perform the proper to tests to actually quantify it.

Both sides , me on mine ... and you on yours ... have to cough up their needed sides of funds prior to the event being accepted and finalized.

Ecommoder stickers are not able to perform the required functions in this context.



Your #4 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.



This proposal of yours violates points #4 and #5 that I already re-clarified for you previously in post #43 above... as such ...

Your #5 proposed change in terms is = Rejected.



Yes ... I've been very clear about this.



Your #6 Proposed change in terms = Rejected.

The financial burden to paying for it is not all on me ... as was outlines previously above... me and my side , cough up in advance our 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed ... you and your side , cough up your 1/2 of the total 'pot' needed in advance as well.



That is 100% BS.

No average Business man is going to know science well enough to know if some paper handed to them is full of crap or not ... and there is no way they will sit and read through the 300+ pages you claim this paper is long ... White papers are not used in the method you describe there for only showing to investors behind closed doors etc.

Please indicate the professional peer reviewed journal that the white paper in question has been published in. Or will be published in. And under what title.

If it can't meet the minimum standards needed to get published in a professional peer reviewed journal, that's a major issue for the 'science' in the paper... And ANY 'investor' worth much would know this as well.

Without passing the professional peer review minimum standard ... it's just a bunch of paper ... it could be a 4th grader writing any random thing for 300+ Pages and be 100% gibberish... that's why we have a per review system.



If you don't intend to ever publish it in a professional peer reviewed journal. It isn't worth paying for the contents.

And to be blunt , you should have already realized before even posting this ... that this is yet another dodge.

Real Science publishes their work all the time.
Real Business publishes their funded research all the time.

This cloak and dagger stuff has only one reasonable response ... doubt and skepticism ... which is exactly what you should have expected before even typing that kind of effort to again be vague and dodge requests to provide the science you claim you have.



We've asked numerous times already. You haven't yet. What evidence is there that you would do as you write this time?

As described above , I reject your 6 different changes you have proposed above.



Luck has nothing to do with this.
The Science is Solid... and it is not on your side in this case.

If you were as certain of the science as you've claimed to be ... Than you don't need to try and make it easier for you or stack the deck in your favor or water it down with the 6 proposed changes I rejected above.

You can reject this or that, but you in no uncertain terms said "HHO CANNOT WORK".

Look at your posts. You claim with your science, that HHO ABSOLUTELY cannot work. And now you are saying I cannot run the engine lean as evidence of this? I have never made the claims of the scammers. I simply have taken the position that HHO does work - with certain conditions. And the ability to take an engine to 22:1 AFR with degraded VOC ( variability of combustion - basically it's miss firing ) and then stabilize and strengthen the combustion with the addition of HHO and/or water vapor is proof of the effect the additional reactants are having on combustion. If an engine is now able to run in a lean regime it was unable to before, that tells me HHO/water is affecting the combustion. I do not have to meet a specification you arbitrarily define. If HHO stabilizes a ragged flame front, it is affecting that flame front! It is not proof that your simple math is wrong, it is proof that something else is happening that your equations did not account for.

And white papers are published for internal as well as external viewing. My work has been peer reviewed by fellows who are working chemical engineers with masters, as well as mechanical engineers and a doctorate in physics who once chaired on the University of California. I think they are well qualified. Business people with money tend to hire well qualified people to review a technology proposal. Granted, the white paper has very little to do with HHO. HHO may be a marketing dead end. But, it does hint to other things even with it's limited effect.

And the uncertainty? You are uncertain so you won't show up next year at the Green Gran Prix. I will still plan on attending and competing in the open demonstration class.