Blocking the development of water injection

[Christine]

The automobile is a technological image, which they prefer sophisticated and therefore expensive. There is more profit to be made than to sell cheap "basic".

Not sure, see the success of the logan. The inexpensive basic but in large quantities is a niche that seems to be increasing here and the manufacturers are doing it without complex, see the cost killer Némo de citroen.
In addition, emerging countries are also getting involved (Nano Tata) because their middle class is starting to have the means and represents a gigantic market.
The future of water injection may be passing there, and one can ask the question whether it is really desirable that it participate in the exponential increase in the number of vehicles in the world. But this is a question that goes out of the subject a bit.

[Christophe]

The future of water injection may be passing there, and one can ask the question whether it is really desirable that it participate in the exponential increase in the number of vehicles in the world. But this is a question that goes out of the subject a bit.

It is a vast debate: an energy ("useful" one often forgets to specify it) less expensive is to boost economic growth ...

So overall, better is 10 cars doped with water or 8 without doping for the same overall consumption? My answer: JOKER!

Anyway, the car may not be the preferred medium for doping.

In agriculture, when a farmer goes from 150 L / ha.year to 100 so less oil brought back to food production, it is at all beneficial for the environment because it is not a doping which will allow to exploit more of earth (at least with us ...) ...

[Remundo]

You're right Christophe, to underline the subtleties of fossil oil consumption.

That is why I have been developing ultracompact motors with my father for a few years so as to free up a lot of space for hybrid sources and actuators, i.e. non-fossil (pneumatic, electric ...)

The engine would only be the ultimate solution after operating at maximum on the hybrid source, itself powered by renewable when the car is in the garage (more than 90% of its life )

That's why the rotary piston machine with controlled beat is compact, among many other qualities .... and compatible with the Gillier Pantone process

For those who want to know more, see the links of my signature.

See you soon !

[Christophe]

For example an irrigation pump that could run on solar and / or wind. This risks considerably reducing the number of areas where doping would be of interest ...

Bof, the solar surface which it takes to make 50 cv (it is the average power of an irrigation group?) Is not nothing ...

Go help you: 50 * 0.74 / 0,15 = 246 m² and this in full sun with 15% yield panels! At 5 € HT the Watt peak the invoice is 185 euros That makes thousands of hours of oil irrigation ... NEVER profitable therefore ...

For wind, there are many wind lift pumps (those of western) but they do not go up much in pressure ... they are pumps which suck above all.

So, with this perspective we can understand that manufacturers do not invest much in RetD on doping:
- on the one hand, it is more interesting to invest in technologies that completely do without petroleum-fuel and there doping has no reason to be

On paper yes it’s more beautiful to do without fuel oil but in practice none reach the energy yield and return on investment of doping. And it is also perhaps for that that it blocks: doping is far too profitable!

- on the other hand, current technologies already make engines less greedy in a controlled way (and with patents), so why invest in a "stammering" technology which we are almost certain that it will not exceed the results of other technologies and which would be - at least in part - in the public domain?

This, yes !

while the industrialists are positioning themselves on what will be truly profitable (in ringing and stumbling pepets).

Should be able to define profitability already ... not easy as a definition if we take into account ALL costs ...

[Chatham]

there is a difficulty in controlling the reproducibility or the stability of the results.

I once attended an almost mystical presentation (I'm barely exaggerating), such that I wanted to leave the room after 5 minutes. I can easily imagine the reaction of a boss in the automotive industry to such presentations ...

Pantone's personality and its ambiguities also work against water doping. Those who oppose the process demagogically abuse this kind of "argument".

Finally (for this time!), The process is "too simple" !!!

1 °) This is an essential point for generalization: one cannot use in large series a system which works only under certain conditions ... and not at all (see much worse than originally) in more ...
2 °) The majority of people who tinker in the Pantone or water doping are fanatics with sectarian and enlightened behavior who announce results as fanciful as not reproducible ... which does not mean that it is completely ineffective , it is under certain very specific conditions (industrial or boat engines at almost constant speed) which means that it is not applicable for everyone and all uses ...
3 °) in the automotive industry we are looking for the system that works in all conditions, simplicity or complexity has nothing to do with it, as against the guy who will find the thing that works REALLY flawless by only costing little jets will be adored by everyone, starting with industry bosses ...
In the design of engines we try everything, but we only retain what really works, and what works is only retained what is technically and economically feasible, which does not mean that an already existing solution but not retained, cannot one day be used when the technique or the circumstances allow it ...
Ex: direct gasoline injection dates from the 30s, but has barely started to really develop ...

[Pierre-Yves]

3 °) in the automotive industry we are looking for the system that works in all conditions, simplicity or complexity has nothing to do with it, as against the guy who will find the thing that works REALLY flawless by only costing little jets will be adored by everyone, starting with industry bosses ...

I would like to be convinced ... I will take an example. If I'm still puzzled about the reduction systematic of diesel consumption by doping with water, I am almost convinced of its qualities for reducing pollution (see the opacimeter test, municipal vehicles in Vitry, etc.). The trend in the automotive industry, however, is to reduce pollution by implementing very complex systems that cause overconsumption.

This aspect of pollution control alone means that I am going to test the water doping on my laboratory boat and that I will do everything, if it works well, to have it "officially" validated. To reduce consumption, I am also looking for other avenues.

[Hydraxon]

There are the results which are not very reproducible, and random, even if they are all optimistic. From the point of view of an industrialist, if I am announced according to a 30% source of gain, according to another 50%, I have much less confidence than if I am given 9% and 10% or 60 and 61.

Competition from theoretical explanations, no one having done any experimentation really step by step (for example directly injecting the gases as they are supposed to be composed according to one of the explanations by suppressing doping). In fact, finding a specialist in fluid mechanics who agrees to validate the work carried out and serve as a spokesperson could greatly help, unless it is Jean-Pierre Petit of course.

The "black box" aspect of most of the tests, announcing the gains in consumption over large periods, but not determining the gains over a minute on the bench or even on a lap by reproducing exactly the same braking.

There is also the sulfurous aspect of the promoters, indeed. onnouscachetout may have an overall negative effect. That Christophe produced a document for Quanthomme, a site that believes in perpetual movement, will probably not help.

So I think that most manufacturers have long instructed NOT to follow anything that looks like Pantone, and that a scientifically authoritative person would have to do shock communication to change that.

[Other]

Hello
Hydraxon
You know why something stays at the bottom of a garage for 30 years, because of people who disparage without having checked

I have the perfect example on the ball burner that has been working since 1970 at the back of my garage, at the beginning several tried to make it and after some difficulties aborted, I worked to simplify it and lose performance, but made easy to build and again, few people have managed to make it, after it is the visit of the ingenuous and big heads, which searches in the patents and patents (junior of my concerns) result you do not occupy yourself not others you do your little business and you let it work, you heat up, and slowly you make some changes in the first years, then after 10 years of use you no longer think about it, you use it and you are content as you like is it why improve it?

Around 2004 I think I put it on the internet at the same time as a slow combustion stove. (and sometimes I wonder if it's good to have talked about it)

despite its great simplicity very little we build and only a few we managed to make it work properly, despite detailed plans with the dimensions, I'm not talking about the slow combustion stove none did, why because they do not believe not that with 3 logs you heat a house for 6 hours when it is -20 outside ..
It's simple, very few DIY enthusiasts with all the current knowledge would manage to make a full-blown internal combustion engine in a functional way.

I am convinced that an ignition failure on your car would make you juggle even if you have all the peices on hand to repair

It is the same for the Panton (I am not afraid of the word) when I have a doubt I check in practice and I can make the share of the things of the truth and the exaggeration, when a guy announces figures on its assembly, I know if it is in the real, I also know how to make the share of the things, for the errors of measurements.
Le forum its main goal is not to promote the water doping system, it is to collect ideas, whether theoretical or practical, it is to allow those who have made montages to communicate, once the contacts established a lot (don't say on the forum), technical exchanges are by email, many good ideas and improvements have been made in this way.
Why this reservation on the forum , precisely if a guy expresses a semblance of theory, the thinkers take out the big equations and the physical laws .. All the hypoteses and theories I listen to them, but I take nothing for granted, as long as I have not tested ..
Personally, constructive criticism is useful, whether it is based on measurements or something tested.
Even all the remarks and observations are useful for understanding,
the outlet temperature, the quantity of water consumed, the engine brake which decreases on a diesel.
the knocking noise of the diesel which decreases, the engine oil which remains cleaner, (the smoke I do not speak about it it did not smoke before and it does not smoke in dopagea water)
Ask yourself the question, what interest does a small handyman like me have in promoting such a system?
what interest does a cultivator have in installing such an accessory on his tractor? and why if it is not functional it continues to operate.
That the big industrialists don't use it? they have their reasons, it can be as simple as having another water supply, it bothers (although a bowl of glass lava does not bother them)
history is filled with similar things, in 1850 or 1870 a beautiful invention to open the ladles of molten steel casting was removed and used, the implementation of this invention was in the 1980s it worked, for more than 120 years with a long rod system in molten metal, while the other system was more economical and more functional.

Now if you think that everyone is being fooled, free to you and if you do not have the capacity to devote 3 afternoons to make an assembly, as simple, to make your own verifications, continue to give theoretical points which explain why this is detrimental to the functioning of the engine (at least with this we can improve)

Andre

[Hydraxon]

André, I am willing to believe that you are acting in good faith, but there I was answering the question "why are manufacturers not looking into this?".

In fact, personally, I am really bad at mechanics, so I could not implement the system myself, and even if it was shown to me I could not say if the engine was actually degraded before.

Now, from the point of view of the owner of a company, can I ask my engineers to embark on this research because you said that on a forum? Rather, he risks having a "too good to be true" approach.

Even if your common sense tells you that it works better after modification, the communication should be made by people with more precise data, because if you have nothing to do with what big heads think, little lucky they are interested.

In short, even if it works, the aspect "it works I don't care what big heads think" does not give the system much chance of being adopted by those who do not tinker with their cars themselves. It is one thing to have good results; it is another to present them to convince a decision maker.

[Cuicui]

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.