So explain how H injection doesn't work again?

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I'm trying to explain how I think it all hangs together because I think these things would become more practical if the theory behind them was better understood. Then one can direct development along lines that leverage their strengths, and shore up their weaknesses.

I'm still thinking about how I'm gonna set a system up, because I recognise firstly that good design and efficiency are key to getting clear repeatable results, and because I don't want to drive with a bomb in the front of the car, so I'm hashing and rehashing the details of how best to install and use a system with minimal hazards to either me, or the vehicle.

I think ZugyNA's point is it is the duty of science to explain unexpected results, rather than deny them. If no theories predict those results and they are repeatable, then the theory is bad, not the results. Results come first theory follows with an explanation. I do think though that yes, results could be prepared more thoroughly. I don't think that any company is going to invest much cash in testing though, this is basically unpatentable at this point. 95% of those hawking kits don't seem to know what they're doing, so they probably don't know the first thing about producing convincing results. Some of those that do have a better idea of what they're doing are coming up with somewhat dubious tests to "prove" it works, but that is apparently to compete in the numbers game with those who just make wild claims.

Then the other side of the problem is that people rely more on their gut feeling about science than the science itself... I get real fed up with arguing things like the fact that a bullet fired horizontally will drop at the same rate as one just dropped out of the fingers at muzzle height... the gut feeling is that it "flies" somehow.... nope sorry... gravity works just the same until you get to significant fractions of escape velocity. Anyway, half the people who argue about things never understood their high school science well enough in the first place for it to override their gut. We do however lack a decent analogy for this process...

Maybe think of a baker... if he starts with only flour and water to make bread... he's going to have to leave his dough sitting around for a week or two to catch enough natural yeasts from the atmosphere for the dough to rise. If he does this every time he's not going to make bread very fast. The efficiency of the baker is poor. If he takes a small piece of risen dough (OMG HE CAN'T DO THAT, THAT MEANS THERE'S LESS BREAD!) and saves it, and incorporates it in the next batch of dough, he introduces a culture of yeast directly into the dough and it rises in a day. Thus the baker can make bread much more quickly and easily and becomes more efficient.

Maybe think of a coal mine... winching the coal up the shaft is a slow and tedious process... it can't be got to the surface as fast as it is mined. So the mine owner decides to install a coal powered steam engine to work the winch (OMG HE CAN'T DO THAT, THAT MEANS THERE'S LESS COAL!) increasing the output of the mine substantially.

Fact is, diesel engines use a portion of their output to do work on their input, spark ignition engines use a portion of their output to do work on their input, automatic pistols use a portion of their output to do work on their input.... get over it already.