Article on the right of reply in Pantone Science and Life

[Other]

Hello
It took you a long time to understand, to see how hard it is to defend SV ?? For me SV, the Press or the Time
Aviasport no distinction .. (When you side with journalists you understand that it looks a lot like politicians)
He spent some of his posts discouraging, or denigrating those who made montages and in a subtle way to say that we are liars or more polite than our measures does not mean anything .. (a farmer does not measure not with specimens, but 1 / 3 tanker less it can measure it)

But what has he brought, theoretical or other constructive?
Just their opinion on the corrosion of the engine because of the water vapor, we see that it is talking, without having a little deeper the thing, those who decelerate and change the oil know something, those who make 30000 km too, as if a liter of water at 100km greatly influenced corrosion compare the amount of water that has in the moist air mass than the downstream engine.
Little handyman as I am I have learned nothing useful, if not the only message I remember (lets it fall for nothing what you do)

I understand why some of the system editors have become so discreet, I think Zac, Michel, Kevin, Pitmix and the others, Misus who makes a short appearance on the forum which has very good results on a Peugeot, a pity that it does not stay, the exchanges would have been interesting,
With figures close to 50% (the best in a car) to my knowledge it would have enough to make the journalist flee.

Andre

[Hydraxon]

Owl hunting is open! Frankly his last post was very heavy and I restrained myself in my answer ...

I think this guy will bring nothing to the advanced system because despite his knowledge he does not formulate any constructive thesis ... quite the contrary ...

ps: did you watch my last mails?

Do you think chemistry knowledge should be used to stack hypotheses without asking if we have sufficient skills in the field so that none of the assumptions made is an enormity? Honestly, I think that's one of the reasons that the pros do not want the system.

Insulting the one who contradicts you is a quicker way to end the debate, but I frankly doubt that your current attitude will get you a more favorable article next time.

[Christophe]

Honestly, I think that's one of the reasons that the pros do not want the system.

Insulting the one who contradicts you is a quicker way to end the debate, but I frankly doubt that your current attitude will get you a more favorable article next time.

Sir loses his cool it looks like ...

I saw no insult until now because if it is "troll" sorry but read the definition ... it is not an insult but a classification of a behavior on a forum...

By cons by your last reaction, sorry but there you were too stupid and you just unmask ... I think you're just a little detractor who will never help the advanced system...because you do not even want to do anything but prove that it's pipo. I hope to be wrong, in this case, prove us the opposite ...

Finally know that your "pros" are not useful to obtain CONCRETE AND VERY REAL results and it is worth all the theories and explanations of the world ... we have nothing to sell or to lose ... us ... which is not THEIR case in this case ...

[Capt_Maloche]

Do you think chemistry knowledge should be used to stack hypotheses without asking if we have sufficient skills in the field so that none of the assumptions made is an enormity? Honestly, I think that's one of the reasons that the pros do not want the system.

Insulting the one who contradicts you is a quicker way to end the debate, but I frankly doubt that your current attitude will get you a more favorable article next time.

There is a little bit of truth, sometimes the Forumers do not necessarily have the right knowledge, but it is a forum

enormities, it happens every day, it is a maelstrom of ideas which just need to be moderated, as I do for example on the subject "magnetic motors of all kinds"

and from all these ideas, it often comes out excellent, whether it is the fact of a righteous reasoning or simply of an enormity with a related idea which has allowed us to put ourselves on the path of an interresting solution, we we have created a magnetic reducer on this subject anyway!

un forum quoi

then, end the debate on the content of this or that hypothesis, and bring your stone to the building, PROVE IT, as we all strive to do

it's a super educative recipe

On the Pantone, I give my opinion personnel:
- The humidification of the air allows a gain of the order of 5 to 10% on the conso it has already been demonstrated many times
- The supply of water vapor heated by the energy lost in the exhaust still brings about 5% gain and cleaner combustion
- The enormous pressure drop caused by the "reactor" that I call the exchanger reduces engine performance in such a way that there is necessarily a reduction in consumption,% variable according to the assemblies
- there is still a factor that I could not quantify which is the injection of steam created from acidic water, loaded I believe with OH- ions and whose presence, without my having been able to verify it, in the combustion chamber would allow better "performance"

After going a little further, the fact of injecting the suction of a diesel engine a mixture close to 100 ° C with a compression ratio of 20 must allow to reach extreme temperatures at the end of compression, mixture that helped by the energy of the explosion can be conducive to the dissociation of water

The dissociation starts at 800 ° C I think, ideally 1600 ° C it seems to me

Without frills, it seems to me that there are enough explanations to justify phenomena noted by the experimenters

[Other]

Hello
-

The enormous pressure drop caused by the "reactor" that I call the exchanger reduces engine performance in such a way that there is necessarily a reduction in consumption,% variable depending on the assembly.

It requires more elaboration

the air filter on a 230hp seaplane makes a loss of load, when we remove it we gain 75 rpm at full power takeoff (it's a lot on an airplane)
but in flight, when cruising at 75% of the power, filter, or not filter it is exactly the same thing, even on the consomation.

To shoot a car 110kmh which is able to roll at 180kmh full power the loss of load does not affect it much,
the power needed to pull it at 110kmh (with loss of load or without loss of load) and the same, asked on the wheels.
There is only one thing to consider. Equal speed Consumption without doping and with doping.
That is to say power of exit to the wheel, equal one compares the consumptions ...

You have to be careful when you talk about efficiency and power.

intake and exhaust piping on a motor is calculated
to have the least posible loss of load, even at full power or it starts to be felt. (The fall of the couple is precisely due to the lack of filling at high speed)
in general it is the passage of the admission valves that the loss is the most important.
but this same engine when it is running at half power it uses the same duct intake and exhaust and valve Theoretically we could reduce these pipes of 50% to be in the same parameters of full power.

Andre

[Flytox]

Hello Capt_Maloche

After going a little further, the fact of injecting the suction of a diesel engine a mixture close to 100 ° C with a compression ratio of 20 must allow to reach extreme temperatures at the end of compression, mixture that helped by the energy of the explosion can be conducive to the dissociation of water

The dissociation starts at 800 ° C I think, ideally 1600 ° C it seems to me

When we inject the exhaust gases into the intake with the EGR System, these gases are very hot (maybe even more than the steam we inject with our fixtures) and yet the combustion temperature is decreased and the result is less NOx. Why is water vapor, whose specific heat is significantly higher than the exhaust gases, not lead to the same phenomenon of lowering the combustion temperature?

A+

[Hydraxon]

By cons by your last reaction, sorry but there you were too stupid and you just unmask ... I think you're just a little detractor who will never help the advanced system...because you do not even want to do anything but prove that it's pipo. I hope to be wrong, in this case, prove us the opposite ...

I am a detractor, and I think you are aware that proclaiming credible explanations when you rely on documents full of errors will never serve your cause. If I make you understand that pretending to explain the operation of this system by using physical concepts that you do not understand, yes it could help you by avoiding you to leave explanations that will only discredit the system.

Do you think that having understood that I was a critic puts you above the need to answer such questions?

Above all, to find something experimentally does not excuse saying anything as an explanation. If you ask science and life to say that the most credible explanation of the Pantone is given by the QED and they realize that it is based on a document stuffed with mistake, I honestly doubt that you help the system.

And I'm very calm, I'm fine.

[Cuicui]

you rely on documents full of errors

Rather than criticize, why not help us fix these mistakes? Any contribution is welcome.

[Tagor]

you rely on documents full of errors

Rather than criticize, why not help us fix these mistakes? Any contribution is welcome.

for now hydraxon has not expressed clearly
his intention to contribute to the drafting of the document
Maybe he wants to stay simple detractor?
if so for what purpose?
is this with the intention of giving credibility to S&V?
for my part I do not give much credit to S&V
but this is only my personal opinion

[Christophe]

I am a critic,

Everything is said, so I do not see pkoi we continue this discussion ...

and I feel that you are aware that proclaiming credible explanations when you rely on documents full of errors will never serve your cause.

Do not understand this sentence (the beginning) but ...

Bouré error? Ben corrects the ... for the moment you have not proved that you could. As Julien has based on different academic publications and that you are smarter than their authors, I advise you to send them a courier to say that they are bullshit.

What do you think of tanker accidents cleaned with water and high pressure? Rah no it's useless ...

Do you think that having understood that I was a critic puts you above the need to answer such questions?

If you understand them explicitly we ...

And I'm very calm, I'm fine.

The QED is ONE of the explanations what matters are the facts not really how it works we make theories that's all! Do you know the definition of a theory? For a scientist, it's hard for you to behave ...


More reassure me have you read anything other than the S&V tea towel?