Message-ID: <39F44AFA.DFEE85FA@regandesigns.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:28:10 -0500
From: Brent Regan <brent@regandesigns.com>
To: Lancair List <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Re: TSIO-550 Heat vs.Fuel Consumption Revisited
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
To Zerbach, Bachman and Ahlstrom et al:

Gentlemen,

How about some real data? As Fred Moreno said "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof". Data has been promised on several occasions but never
forthcoming. The anecdotal claims range wildly 10%, 29%, what is it today?

The comments about aerodynamic improvements are valid, although polishing
pits and then claiming a 0.2% speed improvement is a little silly. Were
density altitude, temperature, humidity and pilot technique exactly the
same? Is the pilot so experienced that he does not improve with every race?
When I was racing there was another driver (and friend) that couldn't get
under 2 minutes at Sears Point. I had him convinced that we were using a
fuel additive from Australia that increased power 5% and agreed to let him
have some for qualifying. I ceremoniously poured a quart in his fuel tank
and we rocked the car to mix it. He turned a 1:58 in qualifying. The
"additive" was just gasoline from our fuel drum in an oil can. QED

Regarding detonation, detonation occurs when the heat from compression,
radiation and conduction raise the temperature of a portion of the charge,
that is near stoichiometric mixture, to the point where it combusts
simultaneously and explosively, without an organized flame front. The
resultant shock wave does travel at the local speed of sound to strike the
inside of the combustion chamber. This event is the "knock" you may hear.
Increasing the radiation with "mirrors" will decrease the detonation margin,
increasing the likelihood of detonation. I believe that it is you who should
read Fred's text books.

The world is full of gullible people who will believe almost any claim. From
diet pills to wrinkle cream to hair tonic to psychic friends to 100 mpg
carburetors, all with testimonials of effectiveness and all false. If you
are going to stand up and claim that you have advanced the art of engine
development by 29% then you better have some proof. Proof is not anecdotal
testimonials of uncontrolled tests. Proof, for example, would be side by
side tests of identical engines with the only change being the ceramic
coating. The tests would be done by a disinterested (read not financially
tied) third party on a calibrated dynamometer.

I understand that you are recalcitrant to conduct these tests as they will
likely demonstrate that the improvements are an order of magnitude less than
what you claim. An improvement of 1% to 3% is reasonable to expect and
consistent with what I measured when I conducted back to back tests with
identical engines on a calibrated dynamometer with the only difference being
the coating.

For you readers who are not familiar with how this works, right around now
we should hear about:
1) All the evidence that exists but cannot be shared due to non-disclosure
agreements, contracts, etc.
2) How the improvements are so obvious that they are clear to any fool.
3) How I must have an undisclosed motive for refusing to accept ceramics
into my heart.
4) How  the data will be available "shortly".

I should also be receiving a private email threatening litigation (as Fred
did). What fun.

I did like the comparison of the coating to a mirror. Combined with the
exhaust we officially have "smoke and mirrors".

Regards
Brent Regan

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>