Hello, I'm new here (so do not shoot me too fast
)
To be clearer, I will detail my message in several points:
1. I do not know anything about the Pantone process and so I do not have a priori, favorable or not ... all that interests me is to explain what the defenders and users of the Pantone observe. My specialty is chemistry ... on the other hand, in mechanics, I do not know anything
2. I'm here because one of my students who read S&V told me about this process. I myself have not read the article, the content of which leaves a rather mixed impression, it seems. Anyway, it has the merit of existing and arousing curiosity (the proof, I'm here).
3. As far as I could understand, the main criticism that is made to the testers of this process is to lack scientific rigor. Since you have the opportunity to work on a project in collaboration with a school, as part of project-based learning, if I understood correctly, try to take advantage of it and work according to a well-defined protocol. Some more specific remarks on this subject:
a / The main qualities of the work should be reproducibility and controls ... otherwise, again, it will be difficult to take the conclusions seriously.
b / Pay attention to the vocabulary you use. I have, for example, noted a certain confusion between ion and radical ... it is this kind of abuse of language which makes credit for the hypotheses advanced and which tends to tick scientists (must believe that I am immune). I understand that some of these notions are a bit unclear for most people and that it may not seem to be of fundamental importance to the person who gets concrete results on a day-to-day basis, but unfortunately, paying attention to these details is the only one. a valid way to have your work taken seriously by the scientific community (which, like any community, is imperfect ... errare humanum est ... and scientists are also humans).
c / I know it is tempting to take the opportunity to ask students to test several parameters that can influence performance. Unfortunately, as they pointed out, their means, both material and human, are limited, so it is necessary, I think, not to disperse and risk, then, to dilute the results to the point that nothing very conclusive remains. This is only the opinion of a novice, but I believe that the best would be to limit oneself to the construction of a pantone engine judged as "efficient" by the community of this site and to accumulate the results allowing to prove or not the efficiency of the engine, before attempting to assess which parameters may or may not further improve the possible performance or explain the origin (which can always be done by an echo-engine3 team next year. since it will be all the more motivating for the students of the academic year 2008-2009 to continue the work of their predecessors if the latter have obtained solid and possibly conclusive results). What the Pantone community is lacking now is formal and concrete proof, established following a well-defined protocol that answers the main questions concerning the effective improvement or not of the yield, without harming the performance. If you have this proof, the number of schools that are likely to be interested in this project will increase and you will then be free to suggest that one or the other test one or the other parameter. , again following a well-established protocol and accumulating concrete results, following a scientific approach.
d / I thought I read somewhere that lawnmower engines work particularly well with the Pantone system. Wouldn't it be more viable, economically and practically (easier handling to put down and remove from the test bench) to work on this kind of engine? Would it then be possible to obtain two identical engines, one being transformed, and the other kept in its own state, in order to be able to make an objective comparison at any time (concept of "blank")? It would probably be less impressive than a single big high tech engine, but perhaps more rigorous.
4. I was a little long, sorry ... even my intervention may seem inappropriate, sorry also for that ... but I want to tell you that it is for the simple purpose of helping you and this help can without doubt to be all the more effective as I have the typical profile of the people who criticize you the most, by my training ... with a little less than a priori.
5. If you have questions related to chemistry, I can try to help you on this point, just contact me in MP (I think it is possible on this kind of forum, is not it ?)
6. Peace and prosperity