"Water in Gasoil" documentary on water injection, car manufacturers know!

[thibr]

as I wrote elsewhere Christophe's document and the only one I know, which is credible on the subject.
and just because it works under certain conditions does not mean that it works in all cases ...
unless you have faith

[gildas]

I advise you to read this article on water doping by Christophe and Capt_Maloche:
Water injection-motor-pantone / article-econologic-autobio-on-doping-al-water-t9612.html

All water injection experiments show a reduction in smoke and therefore soot, even if there is no reduction in consumption.

[Janic]

thibr

as I wrote elsewhere Christophe's document and the only one I know, which is credible on the subject.

indeed, it is an interesting document, precisely because it is "serious" for fans of "rational science", but without these effective preliminary tests, by non-specialists, it would not have been able to tackle it.

and just because it works under certain conditions does not mean that it works in all cases ...

Obviously, this is a truism. Not all of those who testify to having used this kind of technique have turned out to be positive and this is where the interest lies. The first cars, like the first planes make us smile (for the technicians) for these approximations and the many failures which appeared, [*] but the perseverance, in spite of the criticisms sometimes justified, but especially the strong in mouth who affirmed that it would never work and who have been ridiculed by the continuous improvement of these technologies, should give serious thought.

unless you have faith

yes, you have to have faith to dare, but all innovations, creations of all kinds can not do without. But, afterwards, faith has nothing to do with it because it works or it doesn't work, that's all! ... and it works !!!

[*]And yet it moves
The heliocentric theory, defended before Galileo by Copernicus, Kepler or Giordano Bruno and, after him, by Newton, imposed itself in the scientific world first then in the rest of society
and it took a while for that to stop being challenged and fought there, too.

[Christophe]

it's like homeopathy
it works just believe it

I doubt that the students of the Mines de Paris are based on beliefs: https://www.econologie.com/these-mines- ... fioul-eau/

But you seem to "know" better than them to make hasty comparisons ... and blah, blah blah ...

[Christophe]

as I wrote elsewhere Christophe's document and the only one I know, which is credible on the subject.
and just because it works under certain conditions does not mean that it works in all cases ...
unless you have faith

Thank you but sorry I am far from being the only one to have published, others have done it in a much more complete way!

So it is that you have not really looked well (I just gave you one and studies on water injection or wet combustion there are dozens ...), here is another thesis: https://www.econologie.com/these-combus ... i-guillet/

If not:

GDF editions are gullible believers?



Are engineering techniques also true?

Are the Chinese being ripped off by installing wet fuel units to fight SMOG?

Here to help you find some other docs: https://www.econologie.com/injection-ea ... au-moteur/ since you obviously pedal ...

[Christophe]

I advise you to read this article on water doping by Christophe and Capt_Maloche:
Water injection-motor-pantone / article-econologic-autobio-on-doping-al-water-t9612.html

All water injection experiments show a reduction in smoke and therefore soot, even if there is no reduction in consumption.

Absolutely, despite its "age", it is still one of the best "general" article * on the subject and it will complement the links I just posted ...

* and I don't say that because I'm the co-author! Finally if a little anyway

[Janic]

All water injection experiments show a reduction in smoke and therefore soot, even if there is no reduction in consumption.

the two are linked! if there is a reduction in soot or unburnt, it is the addition of water which burns it producing additional energy therefore. On the other hand, in the absence of on-board measurement devices, for each user, the difference may not be very noticeable. This is why users especially point out this absence of soot, odor at the exhaust (especially in gasoline), more recovery therefore of torque, etc .... and frequently the fact of not having to downshift in the ratings, which is nothing subjective to which we can add the more favorable technical control measures.
Indeed, if for some it is the drop in consumption that counts the most, its real interest remains the drop in pollution.

[thibr]

What I was trying to express is the fact that most of "these tests" are too unreliable to be credible, especially when they are compared with an erroneous reference.
and that discredits the principle as true as it is.

[Christophe]

What I was trying to express is the fact that most of "these tests" are too unreliable to be credible, especially when they are compared with an erroneous reference.
and that discredits the principle as true as it is.

It is said that there is nothing worse than the one who refuses to see ... well the one who refuses to read and learn is the same ...

If you think that the theses I mentioned above are too little serious I can do nothing for you ...

[thibr]

that's not what i said
"these tests" refer to "my consumption has dropped by xx%" ... so it works
not to serious experiments.
personally i think it works MAN is proof of that right?