Thanks , I will.
I prefer the scientific type testing I proposed.
I've corrected you on this error previously ... that is not what I claimed.
It might be more productive and useful if you stuck to what I am actually writing, and claiming.
I've already listed other different types of Hydrogen and Water based system that can produce measurable gains.
The system you've proposed , will function ... in that sense it will work ... it will consume electrical energy , it will likely split water into H2 +O2 , etc ... but, not as you've claimed produce "Measurable Gains" ... and it will not as you have claimed "More than compensate for losses"... there is a significant difference between that and what you have incorrectly claimed about me.
I made no such claim.
Replying to actual claims I do make will be far more productive, and useful.
I've explained this before, but I'll try again.
This is basic stuff. The basis of scientific method taught even at the high school level. A professional researcher should already know this. But anyway.
The corner stone of scientific testing is to change as few variables in a before and after as possible. If you change 10 or more things you will have a very hard time to scientifically know which one of those is the cause of the resulting change being measured.
In Science (generally) a result is not significant unless you could not reasonably produce the same result in another 'random fluke' type of event. Scientifically 'reasonable'/'significant' usually means more than 2 standard deviations from the norm.
As soon as you want to change the ATF ratio to a Lean Burn mixture.
The correct scientific approach would be to determine the reasonable (greater than 2 standard deviation) expected limits that would come from just doing that ATF ratio change to lean burn without your Hydrogen and Water device.
Your device has to produce greater results than could be had by just making ATF ratio adjustments to run lean (without your device).
As it so happens , we have an example of that Lean Burning ICE without your device.
Without Hydrogen or Water device a properly adjusted Lean Burn ICE has already been properly documented and tested being able to:
Stable and smooth up to as high as 25.8:1 ATF
Achieve up to a 20% improvement to BSFC
Stable and smooth Lean at less than 30% ICE load... up through to.
Stable and smooth Lean at more than 90% ICE load.
Stable and smooth Lean bellow 1,500 RPMs
Stable and smooth Lean up to 3,000 RPMs
To know for to a scientific reasonable certainty that your device is producing any significant benefit , you have to do better than what the tuned Lean Burn ICE above can do without it.
Just like if you had a rocket engine strapped to the back of the car as well as your device. You have to also scientifically account for that other change (the rocket engine effects) in order to know if your results are from the rocket engine or from your device. You do not get to ignore the other change effects ... be they rocket engine, ATF, ICE Timing, electric motor on rear wheel, etc.
22:1 ATF is not enough to scientifically rule out that the gains are all coming from just the Lean Burn adjustment itself ... see above ... with no (Hydrogen or Water injection) device an ICE is able to get up to 25.8:1 ... meaning , scientifically 22:1 is not good enough to be significant.
If you only see 10% improved BSFC you are seeing 1/2 the gains of the 20% improved BSFC for the Lean Burn only (no Hydrogen + Water Device) ... which means that 10% is scientifically NOT good enough to be significant.
I never said you did.
I did define 100% reasonable scientific norms for testing, as the terms for my bet / challenge. Weather you like or accept scientific testing methods is entirely up to you.
What math of mine are you referring to?
I do not recall presenting to you flame front calculations here.
We can get into that science and math as well if you like. Sense a basic literature search is usually the 1st step in any professional research. Which specific ones (citation please) from the literature search you did prior to your research would you like to discuss? The ones I've already read won't offer you much net help here.
Also this claim of 'proof' is an unscientific leap. You need to rule out (to greater than 2 standard deviations) other reasonable explanations ... As long as there is a a Lean Burn ICE that gets 25.8:1 without Hydrogen or Water ... just getting 22:1 is not in itself scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't... just like 10% improved BSFC is not itself good enough to be scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't.
As has been asked previously multiple times.
Please list the professional peer reviewed journal it was published in, and under what title.
I am not uncertain at all.
Despite your repeated attempts to try to twist what I claim into that.
If you are certain of your science... as I am of actual science.
And it has already been published in a peer reviewed publication as you claim. Stop being intentionally vague, and dodging questions. List the Title and professional peer reviewed journal where it (this white paper with the supporting science) is published. Agree to proper scientific testing.
I have not yet seen sufficient reason to justify the trip.