Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Can YOU in your infinite wisdom explain HOW a vehicle that cannot run at 22:1 AFR will run with the addition of small amount of HHO and water vapor? It is obvious you are a mental giant and I know so little! Come on oh master of everything! And while you are at it, will you tell us how that same engine, which cannot even fire up, is able to run at 28:1 AFR with the only change being the addition of HHO/vapor derived from an on board generator using alternator current? I see these engines doing these things on the dyno and I don't know why they do it! I will gladly show you the very same phenomenon, but you must explain it first because you are the ONE WHO KNOWS ALL!
I am jesting.
|
I'm glad you added the last bit about jesting. Because I've never claimed those grandiose things you were falsely claiming above it.
You also completely side stepped and missed the point entirely.
The scientific method is about falsifiability. You don't have to be able to explain how or why gravity works to be able to test a falsifiable claim about weather an apple will fall.
When you claim your method / device as "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses" you've made falsifiable claims about the source of the results you are getting.
In order to scientifically be able to make the kinds of 'source of results' claims you are making , you have to rule out the 'other reasonable causes'.
In the case of the apple falling we would have to rule out other possible causes as well.
You do not get to ignore the rocket you strapped to the car. You do not get to ignore the electric motor you put on the rear wheel. You do not get to ignore the ability for ICE's to run Lean without your method or device. You do not get to ignore the costs of your device being on the vehicle and for it's operation.
The scientific base line for what an ICE can do without your method and or device has been listed. Weather you like how high that Lean Burn performance is or not doesn't change reality.
- - - - -
As for your other requests.
We have examples of Lean Burn ICEs running without your method or device at up to and over 28:1 AFR ... your failure to run one over 22:1 does not remove the 28:1 (without your method or device) from being a reality... nor from it's effect on what is scientifically expected from your device/method ... At least in order for your claims to be scientific about your method/device being responsible for the results achieved.
I'm not psychic, I wasn't there when you had your failure to run whatever it was you ran at over 22:1 ... nor do I have the data to know how you tried to do it ... It is not reasonable to expect me to be able to know why you failed in such a test I don't have sufficient data about... even if I did have that data ... It would still not remove the 28:1 without your method/device.
There is well established science for the effects of injecting things into an ICE. Be it Hyrdogen, or non-cobustables like water. As I've written about before we know their effects. We also know the costs. The system you propose will not as you claim have "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses". We can see up to 20% BSFC gains from Lean AFR without your method or device. Anything less than 20% is not itself scientifically good enough to be evidence your method/device is as you claim: "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses"
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
I will discuss the science of hydrogen seeding. Sandia Labs through the CRF ( Combustion Research Facility ) is methodically researching many of these very questions.
|
At this point , I doubt it.
You've been intentionally vague and dodged the vast majority of any technical question leveled at you. And , you've dodged and refused to provide the title of the white paper you site nor the professional peer reviewed journal it is supposedly published in. And, you refuse to discuss any of the science and technology in depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Though, you know nothing of white papers and probably have never published one.
|
Hint = You're not psychic , nor are you qualified to decide what other people know or do not know.
As of right now... You've never yet provided the citations you claim to have ... so far all the science you claim to have ... and the 100+ page white paper you claim to have already published in a peer reviewed profession journal ... all only seem to exist in your mind as a piece of fiction... This is science , your word that it is there isn't good enough... and if you are what you say you are (professional researcher) ... than you should already know this, and be expecting the kind of skepticism and rejection you are getting , given what you refuse to provide.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
People seem to think I am applying some hocus pocus logic to all of this,
|
I for one think do not think it's 'hocus pocus' ... I think you are being very unscientific about what you are contributing as the source of the results you are measuring ... and you are willfully and intentionally being vague and refusing to provide the science nor references you claim to have ( as such they only seem to exist in you mind ).