Blocking the development of water injection

[jean63]

It is one thing to have good results, it is another to present them to convince a decision maker.

A decision-maker can decide to ignore good results that hinder his interests, for example if he has actions in the manufacture of catalytic converters. Trying to convince him is then a waste of time.

Well spoken here.

[Remundo]

Hi Hydraxon

It is one thing to have good results, it is another to present them to convince a decision maker.

there is nothing to add

If it is not that the results must be good ... et whether they earn or save a lot of money

[Christophe]

And hop a small "synthetic" article with for the 1st time: pantone, spad and vulcano together (which are ultimately all the same thing but good):

https://www.econologie.com/le-syndicat-a ... -3699.html

It is published in the agricultural union and written by someone from the chamber of agriculture ... so not "funny" ...

You see the "big ones" will never be able to block continuously something which gives in real life! They can simply continue to try, as cuicui rightly says, to limit its development as much as possible and this will mean breaking its credibility and the theories of explanations that can be formulated ...

Some are already trading, on econology we are therefore rather focused on understanding ...


If the "big ones" are not interested in it yet, but they will certainly do so in the future when it is oppurtun for them. This will be largely thanks to us (the 1st actor in Gillier Pantone doping) and obviously they will continue to "despise" us as they usually do (see NIH) ...

[Hydraxon]

Reflection on the initial arguments:

- They are interested but marketing is not yet planned
- Industrial or mental inertia
:: The patent dates from 1998, but when we read the history of water doping we read that it has been around since 1920

- Reproducibility or stability of results difficult to control
:: I actually think that this problem is very dissuasive.

- Bad understanding of the system
:: Yes, by the way nobody understands how it works.

- System in the public domain, difficult to patent
:: I don't understand this argument. There is no point in rejecting a system in the public domain, since the patent serves to prevent competitors from doing so. Since it is in the public domain, using it does not change the fact that competitors will be able to do it too.

- System too simple to interest engineers (doping leads to equivalent or better results than the development of high pressure diesel injection, the development of which took more than 10 years and millions of hours of engineering).

- Bad image of the system relayed by Pantone but also by certain "actors" (formation of certain very dubious "organic" groups).
:: Indeed, the system has no lawyer with a good reputation.

- NIH (Not Invented Here)
:: Hum, I know that NIH is an important brake, but it rather pushes to modify the system very slightly by saying that it is much better than to reject it

- Improved lifespan not profitable to engine vendors (who alone can afford to really develop the system)
:: In rich countries, cars are not used until the end of their life. By exaggerating a little, we can buy a new car because the connector of the old only works with the previous generation of iPod.

- Applicable on old engines not favorable to the purchase of new engines
:: There, that poses the problem of compatibility with recent engines. If we can multiply the gains, no reason to deny it and it prevents competition from old engines.