-----> Magnet Motor Drives Generator for FREE JUICE.

[tinman]

You are conflating propellant with fuel.  A propellant merely conforms to Newton's Third Law.  A fuel is consumed:  The feed stock changes into a different material with a lower energy potential, and the difference in energy is released.Well that was a nice attempt to try and conduct a meaningful experiment.  However:

You did not determine the caloric output of any of the three fuels used.
You did not determine whether any of the fuel alterations affected the caloric to mechanical efficiency of the engine.

So you pretty much can only conclude what you observed:  CHT and run time versus fuel type.

Lol-see what i mean guys-text book stuff used to try and discredit some ones work and conclusions.

You did not determine whether any of the fuel alterations affected the caloric to mechanical efficiency of the engine.

And yet i recorded both an increase in teperature and power output when adding water.

Water injection systems are designed to decrease engine running temperatures by decreasing the temperature of the gas entering the engine. This has the effect of being able to raise the compression,and/or advance the timeing of the engine. commonly used on turbo or super charged engines to increase boost pressures without destroying the engine.

But in my case,both the engine temperature and power output(via way of longer run time) both increased.As i stated,in order for water to increase engine performance via way of text book theory,then the engine temperature would have to decrease. But as i noted,the engine temperature increased,so the extra energy did not come from converting engine temperature into mechanical energy.
I might also add that all engine parameters remain the same -EG,timing,compression ratio,and load.

[MarkE]

Lol-see what i mean guys-text book stuff used to try and discredit some ones work and conclusions.

It's good that you conduct experiments.  What's not so good is when you draw conclusions that your experimental data does not support.  What's ugly is that for some reason you seem to disdain education.

Here are some things for you to think about:

What happens to your results if the caloric content of the various mixtures happened to be identical, but the flame propagation rate is different?
What happens to your results if the flame propagation rates are different and the caloric contents are different?
What happens to your results if the specific heat of the vapors are different?
What did your experiments do to establish any:  the caloric content of any of the mixtures, the flame dynamics, or the specific heat of the gasses during the power stroke?

When a grad student comes up with an idea, investigates the idea, and then writes up their thesis, they then must defend their thesis.  That process is not some sort of fraternity hazing.  It is a legitimate vetting of the student's work.  If the work is solid it holds up to such inquiry.  If it is full of big holes it is unlikely to do well.  You can choose to take the criticisms of your conclusions as constructively as they are offered, or you can take them personally as some sort of persecution.

And yet i recorded both an increase in teperature and power output when adding water.

Great, you changed a variable and you observed two parameters change.

Water injection systems are designed to decrease engine running temperatures by decreasing the temperature of the gas entering the engine. This has the effect of being able to raise the compression,and/or advance the timeing of the engine. commonly used on turbo or super charged engines to increase boost pressures without destroying the engine.

Yes, both the specific heat of water, and latent heat of vaporization of water are both very substantial quantities.

But in my case,both the engine temperature and power output(via way of longer run time) both increased.

So, what can you conclude?  Assuming that the mechanical load was regulated as 500W/Efficiency_alternator you know that the engine delivered more total mechanical energy for a fixed fuel mixture volume, and that the amount of heat rejected to the engine mass increased.  What you do not know is either:  1) How much chemical energy was contained in each mixture, or 2) How much heat energy evolved from the combustion went out the exhaust (most of it) in each case.

As i stated,in order for water to increase engine performance via way of text book theory,then the engine temperature would have to decrease. But as i noted,the engine temperature increased,so the extra energy did not come from converting engine temperature into mechanical energy.

You make the invalid assumption that input energy increased.  You have not accounted for the bulk of the energy released:  the exhaust, so you cannot say whether the longer, hotter runs were the result of greater heat generation or not.

I might also add that all engine parameters remain the same -EG,timing,compression ratio,and load.

That's nice, and it reduces the number of variables.  Unfortunately, if determining caloric output was your goal, your experiments were not set-up to do that.

[ramset]

TinMan
I had to go visit with my daughter,  away from the computer for a few days
Regarding your engine work and water fuel


I,m very excited about that.....
We need to get you off the road and into a lab!


That,s the page I,m on my friend,have a good week.


Chet

[ramset]

fatbird
It is the assumption that Mark E somehow has the final word on these things without ever having spoken
With the inventor or having any interaction with some one who has.
He treats the TPU LENR NMR NAR or any other claim the same way.


He places himself in a category where people have no respect for his opinions,because he has none
His word is the final word...opinions need not apply.


Case in point Wasif
And Mark E is also very disingenuous he outright lies and says I support these claims
When all I do support is a proper investigation prior to a sentencing.


An open ended statement which would perhaps be a benchmark post highlighting the
Issues with the inventors claim would be much better than calling someone you never spoke with a thief and a liar


He has the same approach for Steven Mark's  TPU and many other
Claims where we have never spoken with the  inventor


I'm still away visiting but we need to address this here,for several reasons
Not the least of which is to keep  these threads from regurgitating old topics

[MarkE]

fatbird
It is the assumption that Mark E somehow has the final word on these things without ever having spoken
With the inventor or having any interaction with some one who has.
He treats the TPU LENR NMR NAR or any other claim the same way.

Evidence is always welcome.  You frequently bring none.

He places himself in a category where people have no respect for his opinions,because he has none
His word is the final word...opinions need not apply.

Evidence is always what matters.

Case in point Wasif

Indeed.  Wasif's hapless videos were evaluated based on the evidence they presented and found to refute his claims by multiple reasonable people.  Of late you whine that those evaluations were somehow unfair or inconclusive without taking a single observation to task.  IOW, you prefer fantasy to reality.

And Mark E is also very disingenuous he outright lies and says I support these claims
When all I do support is a proper investigation prior to a sentencing.

Falsely claiming as you do that there is any reasonable doubt as to the truth or falsity of ridiculous claims that have been completely demolished by the likes of Greg Potter and Wasif Kaloon is giving support to those claims.  It's your free right to ignore facts as you choose.  It's no one else's fault that you get called on that.  If you actually believed the BS positions that you adopt you wouldn't be offended that others note them.

An open ended statement which would perhaps be a benchmark post highlighting the
Issues with the inventors claim would be much better than calling someone you never spoke with a thief and a liar

You adhere to a strange fallacy that determination of the truth or falsity of a claim requires a personal pilgrimage and face to face interview with the claimant.  Curiously, to the best of my knowledge you have never stated what supposed information such a pilgrimage or interview would render that alter the conclusions reached with other data.  When something clearly and indisputably fails to perform as a claimant states in their own presentations what more do you expect from an in-person inspection?  Remarkably even when damning facts are brought up you routinely fail to address those facts, and just bleat on with your nonsensical arbitrary criteria that no claim can be judged without a pilgrimage and/or face to face interview with the claimant.

He has the same approach for Steven Mark's  TPU and many other
Claims where we have never spoken with the  inventor

Got evidence?  Nope.  And that's the problem with so many extraordinary claims.

I'm still away visiting but we need to address this here,for several reasons
Not the least of which is to keep  these threads from regurgitating old topics

The forums are open for discussion.  Strong arguments are backed by reliable:  IE verifiable facts.  The charlatans Wasif Kaloon and Greg Potter will be singing the famous song "Tomorrow" until they have no more breath to sing.