About the report

[Christophe]

And here is my answer:

Hello,

Yes you are entirely right here are my remarks:

a) the amount of water varied between 1 and 2 L per hour (about 1/4 of the fuel consumption if I remember correctly). Fuel gain: they are given (5% max) but the advance was not optimized whereas it is a fundamental parameter for the performance of a petrol engine


B) the results are not biased ... simply the assembly (purely experimental) did not have time to be optimized ... the pressure drops at the intake did not allow to correctly fill the engine ... .a double reactor would no doubt have improved this point

c) yes..especially knowing that the CO is colorless, odorless ... we could also qualify it as breathable;)

d) what do you mean by "classic" engine? variable speed / load?
If you are talking about the engine in original condition, the pollution comparison was precisely between the modified assembly and the original (but a petrol generator set is obviously not at the cutting edge of pollution control).

e) because they seemed null or negative (see a)) but taking into account the means implemented: impossibility of directly measuring the couple (this would have been very interesting)

f) study to do .... I ask only that !! but I can't afford it: /

Your conclusion is correct, mine is that there is something to "dig" in this process (many other discoveries have been made since ... the study dates from 2001) because we still end up with results in depollution very interesting (even if they must be put in context: better adjustment, fixed speed ...) taking into account the simplicity of the system.

ps: I invite you to come and discuss it on the forum of econology: https://www.econologie.com/forums/ which seems more frequented than this one.
Thanks see you soon

[Christophe]

Hi everybody,

Here are some comments I received (on another forum) about my PFE report:


I have just gone through the summary of this study (the rest being protected).
My remarks:

a / There are no figures on the amount of water and / or fuel savings.

b / The test bench was made with a group of 4KW, while the published measurements are limited to powers from 0 to 2KW. Given that such a group is normally made to give its optimal output at nominal power (ie 4KW), the balance seems skewed.

c / The published results show an improvement in combustion: there is no hydrocarbons or CO in the exhaust gases. It still seems premature to say that the gases are breathable.

d / The author mentions the numerous adjustments necessary to find the optimum, which ultimately gave the published results. There is however no test (described) to optimize combustion on a conventional engine, and compare these results.

e / There are no measurements on possible gains in power or torque
per liter of fuel.

f / There are no measurements on the influence of the different parameters. What happens, for example, to these (good) results if we increase or stop the magnetic field, if we vary the water / petrol or input gas / exhaust gas ratios.

My conclusion for the moment, is that it has managed to optimize the combustion within its engine by a good adjustment and a good recycling of exhaust gases; this is possible and already done on any engine with the necessary care.

Valorous