Interview with Christophe Martz about water doping in engines (Part 2)
Full text of an interview with C. Martz about the water doping performed by Katia Lefebvre and who contributed to the writing of the article pantone engine in Action Auto Moto
All the facts and figures presented on this page are true and real, a pity that the article in question did not cover this interview in more detail.
You can use these questions for subsequent publications or broadcasts (oral or written) provided that I obtain my written consent ( contact me ).
Continuation and end of the interview
KL: Still in the case of the car tested by TF1 (there is only water in the bubbler, no water + fuel mixture), I don't quite understand the difference with the principle of aquazol ...
In the absence (to my knowledge) of a relevant study on doping with water via a pantone exchanger, I could not conclude. There are strong differences in practice, but the principle seems common: combustion improved by the presence of water and therefore reduction in pollutants and consumption.
About aquazol, I quote ( see this page ):
“We note, by measurements carried out on standardized cycles (…) for an EEG fuel compared with the diesel used in the formulation of the EEG:
- a reduction in NOx emissions of 15 to 30%;
- a reduction in smoke and soot of 30 to 80%;
- a reduction in particle emissions of 10 to 80%.
Compared to the “diesel” base, there is a slight tendency to reduce energy consumption by approximately 2%, which can be explained by a more complete combustion of the hydrocarbons in the presence of water and thus leading to a slight improvement in efficiency. "
The differences lie in the fact that, in the case of doping, fuel and water are stored and injected independently. Technically, this has advantages (no problem of stability of the emulsion, no distribution network to set up, etc.) but also drawbacks (need to modify the vehicle, double tank, illegality, etc.).
In addition, an important point, the results in terms of the decrease in consumption seem much more interesting (in the 20%) in our case than that of aquasole. Additional technical studies would be necessary to precisely characterize the principle of doping with water via a Pantone reactor.
KL: Water cracking is a thermochemical process that is quite difficult to obtain, both in terms of heat and pressure. If as I understood it on the Internet, all the difference between an ordinary injection of water and the Pantone lies in this cracking of the water, how is it that you have not found the presence of hydrogen during your experiences?
CM: Because there is no hydrogen leaving the “reactor” (or very little, 1 to 2%, measurement carried out in the event that gasoline vapors pass through the reactor). This is why I prefer to speak, in the case of water doping, of an exchanger (until it is proven that there is something other than heat exchange). But, on the other hand, you should know that cracked water does not necessarily take the form of O2 and H2, there are other possibilities ... energetically more interesting than hydrogen in the form of H2 ...
KL: I also read on the Internet certain things which seemed to me not very serious, in particular of the references to terrestrial magnetism… This one being low, I do not understand well what that could bring. If you have to magnetize why not put strong magnets?
CM: Several experiments have shown that the installation of magnets or other devices to increase the magnetic field did not improve the functioning of the “reactor”.
On the other hand, the installation of an alternating field has shown some interesting things (variation of regime with the variation of the excitation frequency). Here again, research is sorely lacking.
KL: Can you tell me if this is something serious?
CM: Yes and no, the magnetic component exists but it is not so obvious and seems more to be a consequence (friction of the vapor in a small space) than a reason for a "reaction". This, like other aberrations that can be read on the internet, does the system wrong… But it must be said that the first detractor is Pantone itself. For example, he claims that there is a phenomenon of cold fusion and that we can treat nuclear waste via his reactor… This is not very serious especially since he is not able to prove what he pretends.
KL: And finally, don't you think that the absence of serious figures and the presence of less rigorous information, esoteric limit harm Pantone?
CM: Yes of course and I strongly regret it. But the fact is that the engine manufacturers, the only ones who have the means to do really serious things, do not seem really interested (yet they are currently filing many patents themselves on water injection or on-board reforming ...) but in any case, they do not work with processes independent of their office. The public institutions that I contacted to ask for help simply did not respond ...
KL: I interviewed Gérard Belot, PSA engineer, on the Pantone. It will not surprise you to read what he said to me: “if it worked there is a long time ago that it would exist!”
When I asked him how he should be done so that he agrees to look into the matter, he replied: “Someone should make me a proposal which includes patents first and that he provides proof of the functioning of the system, with UTAC expertise to back it up… If so, let's look! ”
CM: Classic detractor argument but irrelevant since PSA obviously did internal research on Pantone. Indeed; their old system requires them to do research with all the systems "lying around" on the net or elsewhere. Besides, about twenty engineers and technicians from PSA went to see one of the tractors doped with water… If that did not interest them, do you think they would have come?
Another source, from an external consulting engineer, would confirm their interest in the system. Finally, I would have a reputation, in their services, of "fucker of shit" ...
Last and undoubtedly the most relevant point: numerous patents on on-board reforming and water injection are currently filed by PSA or other engine manufacturers.
Now, going back to their research, of course I don't know how far they went. I do not know the conclusions of their research either. Maybe they are still going on? Maybe they were quickly abandoned because the interest of the system quickly found its limits compared to other technologies? Perhaps there are good results but unusable for more obscure reasons? (interest group, reasons of State, psychological aspect for the driver to put water in his vehicle…) or what do I know?
No one is fooled and everyone is aware of the strong State-Petrolier-Constructor collusions and the financial windfall on energy consumption. Do you think the coal miners and the builders of steam engines helped the early builders of heat engines? Obviously not ...
Whatever one may say, the obstacles to innovation and development are, in the field of energy undoubtedly the hardest to overcome ... The pitiful development of wind power in France is a good example ... this, by chance, not linked to the nuclear interest group?
KL: Didn't you in your studies have pollutants analyzed by Utac? And what are your conclusions?
My conclusions? Promising process but far from being completed, therefore requiring serious additional investigations… I appeal for help but they seem to be in vain…