This is really starting to get "fun"! Ecky, I really appreciate you contributing. I wanted to test the validity of my
presentation (I already know the science and results from the 30+ years of testing at both a personal and professional level), and you are helping me find the weak points. Working backwards, the 80k Gauss rating was advertised by the manufacturer, Dutchman Enterprises. The
Magnetic Heat Exchanger was part of the Dutchman Hydro Assist Fuel Cell kit marketed in 2007-8. We acquired about 100 of the kits after the FTC shut them down. The MHE was patented by Dennis Lee (a name you probably recognize), and
he claims 80k Gauss. I don't make them, when the inventory runs out, I have to get details from Dennis and/or pay out patent royalties if I want to make more.
As for how science views the "closed loop", Quantum Physics acknowledges the open loop reality, but most of the other fields of science ignore it.
You made a comment about having time to test products and theories, I've had 3 decades to play. I still work the daily grind. But over the past 31 years I've taken the time and finances to test more crap than I can even remember. Occasionally something "ACTUALLY WORKS!!". You better believe I remember the good stuff! There are a few select technologies that have utterly blown my mind! Furthermore, being involved with OEM level engineering, I've had the opportunity to test ideas with equipment very few experimenters have access to.
You ran some math on unburned hydrocarbons (2022 Honda Civic). I will challenge you the same way I challenged Josh Millard and his under-qualified "expert", professor William P. Halperin, PhD, head of the physics department at some university (ambiguity used as a dis) in the FTC vs Dutchman Enterprises case in US Federal Court (where I earned the official title Fuel Economy Expert). The US EPA concludes that the modern vehicle is capable of burning >99% of the fuel admitted into the engine (your Honda example). However, the engine itself is only around 18% to 22% efficient. The catalytic converter does an excellent job of masking the engine's inefficiencies, thus burning >99% of the fuel.
If you look only at what comes out the tail pipe and think that those emissions represent engine efficiency, you are NOT giving the catalytic converter consideration. In other words, your assumptions are not based on ENGINE EFFICIENCY, but VEHICLE efficiency. I highly encourage you to look at the
Combustion Efficiency page I put together (if you haven't already) to get a better idea of what transpires in the cylinder when the spark plug fires. With that knowledge, you have clues on how to make things better.
I work in electronics and microprocessors. If a programmer codes a "1" where there should be a "0", it doesn't work. If 9/10 programmers use a 1 instead of a 0, the majority claim the technology doesn't work. But in reality, it works every time it's done correctly -- use the damn 1 not the 0!
Ecky, thanks again! Please don't stop. In fact, to others are watching the action from the comfort of their own home, please chime in. I need to know if I'm presenting what I KNOW properly. If my presentation is weak, I want to know. More importantly, I want to encourage experimenters to try what I suggest. Get the gains. Spread the work. The world needs it, we need it. May I say, Mother Earth needs it. Sadly, as much as I am a proponent of EVs, I don't think they have a shot in hell of delivering what the politicians are expecting any time soon. There are too many infrastructural inadequacies. This leaves the ICE to do the job for at least the next 2-3 decades.