The word science and the word
technology are often confused. How many know the difference between
precision and accuracy? When did science begin? What is the difference
between induction and deduction? All these concepts play a role in
modern science. But not all scientists are scientific though they may
play at it. Not all true scientists are in universities or research
labs. Lavoisier was a true scientist, as were Newton, Kepler,
Archimedes, Tesla and Babbage. BUT Edison and Aristotle certainly were
not. Lavoisier discovered oxygen and nitrogen in air and explained the
role of oxygen in combustion processes. Aristotle invented the first
form of logic but was wrong on nearly all his explanations of nature.
Edison tried to destroy Tesla after Tesla invented alternating current.
Archimedes invented huge robot arms that nearly demolished the Roman
fleet attacking Syracuse. Babbage invented the first computer. Newton
invented the calculus and the first physics after Kepler invented the
concepts of force, acceleration and the three Laws of elliptical
orbits. It is said that Newton stood on Kepler's shoulders.
Science evolved from
alchemy--out of human greed for gold. The early definition of science
became: a systematization and categorization of natural phenomena. It
was essential to learn and then practice the Scientific Method using
induction to study problems from the first recognition of the problem,
following many logical steps to a valid conclusion. A practitioner
formed conclusions from the particular data to the general hypothesis
while making no assumptions or preformed judgements. The empirical
results alone answered questions and pointed to the facts and truths
along the way. Data from experiments eventually led one to an accepted
general result called a hypothesis or law that must be confirmed by
others. The use of mathematics is essential to screen invalid fallacies
that might taint the results. Rigor remains the key to accurate
observations and correctness of logic whereby analysis is the
disassembly and synthesis in the putting together of new concepts.
Real
science involves something recently discovered that has not been fully
studied or resolved. Sometimes new stuff is downright mysterious and
baffling. That is the nature of fresh concepts. The typical stance of
most non-scientists (and some scientists) is to ridicule new concepts.
They seem to do this from human ignorance of the steady and often
tedious procedures of good science. They may prefer the comfortable and
familiar ideas such as the Flat Earth.
The
Scientific Method is a valuable device composed of many steps, where
each step is built upon the correctness of the preceding step. Each
phase of THE METHOD is well defined and not in dispute. You learn the
steps and begin to apply the methods of science and lo-and-behold, it
works. It succeeds. You immediately wonder why it took so long for
humans to practice these methods to solve problems. Induction is not
intuitive except to a few fortunate, gifted individuals who were born
with a knack for induction. In ages past, most of the world practiced
deduction which is a guessing game based on observations, hints and
clues.
Self-appointed
experts immediately claim science is just observation. You observe and
JUST figure it out. That is crude deduction. Most often of course, the
conclusions from deduction are incorrect. There does not have to be
experimentation with deduction. It can be a pure mind-game. Once in
awhile, deduction may seem to be correct. But not everyone is a
Sherlock Holmes. Mathematicians and theorists employ mathematics and
with that powerful tool have been able to predict situations in nature
for which there was no data or observations. That form of pure science
involves mathematical induction. Applied science is where we work on
subjects that will enter the realm of technology or engineering and may
one day appear in the marketplace. I happen to love both pure and
applied science.
How
does logic fit into this scheme? Logic is the set of rules for good
thinking and organized rationalization. There are several types of
logic. Logic sorts the reasonable from the unreasonable. Logic relies
on correct data and on the validity of the steps and reasons being
presented. Logic has no favorites. The rules depend on validity support
or at least that the Seven Great Fallacies were observed and all the
filtered details are valid. All the details must be valid or the whole
process is flawed. Saying something does not make it true, per the
Fallacy of Composition. Several opposing facts cannot all be true, per
the Fallacy of Contradiction. And so forth. I was weaned on logic such
as Aristotle's syllogisms where in a list of statements precedes each
statement and the validity depends on the correctness of the preceding
statement. The rules of logic and validity were driven into us as
children where I went to school.
I
learned to program computers in 1960 and loved doing so. Soon things
evolved from plug boards to tapes and paper cards to discs, to
point-and-click and finally to where we are now. When we write source
code and compile, we cannot expect the machine to read our minds.
Pwehaps in the future. We must be correct at least enough to get a
compile to succeed with few errors. That takes discipline and a strong
logic for following the rules of the machine, the operating system and
the compiler. For instance E comes after D, not before it. And 555 is
bigger than 44, not smaller. To not misspell words and so forth. Then
you must worry if the compiled program will execute the way you
intended and perform the duties you designed. You may have to redesign
the program and debug it until it is cleaned up. Then the users will
complain and you have to do everything again. So computer science is
less a science and more a mechanical job for trouble shooters and
technicians--an extremely skilled bunch of logical practitioners
indeed. Eventually computers became small enough to control our cars
and I feel this trend has just begun because soon computers will do the
driving themselves. You will sleep, read the paper and relax as you go
down the road OR you might talk to the computer for company.
Making
new objects for patent applications or to verify the feasibility of an
unknown device is where I spent years learning the trade of pure
science and experimentation. Much of that begins by working in the dark
with concepts never before seen on this planet. Hopefully my last day
will come inside a lab right after I make a startling discovery and
pass away from the excitement. Of course a monumental discovery is
followed by euphoria but then by seriously seeking flaws in your own
work to try to prove it is wrong. Failing at that, one goes to others
to have them attempt to disprove your hypothesis. Failing at that, you
publish and let the world criticize your discovery. And they surely do.
Sometimes you wonder why you ever did it.
EXERCISES IN TESTING:
My
newest attempts to get our country out of financial trouble and to
reduce all our operating costs is by (all of us) getting 40
to 60 MPG in the family car. I do this routinely in my family
cars. So can you. It is not difficult. I wish to help our military
vehicles get greatly extended range. I want us to break away from our
addiction to oil in general. We simply must stop burning oil.
We must end the insanity.
My
earliest attempt to be a scientist was at age nine. We had over 100
chickens behind our house near 48th and Broadway in South Los Angeles.
I wanted to experiment with rooster and hen eggs after noticing that
some eggs were nearly round while others were longer and more
elliptical. The round eggs were much more plentiful. So one summer I
collected the eggs from all the hens every morning as they were first
laid and rearranged them according to shape and color. Certain hens
would get the long eggs to hatch while the other hens would receive the
rounder ones. After the eggs hatched, it became apparent that the long
eggs became little roosters. The rounder eggs all became hens as they
grew. The color did not matter that I could see. The baby roosters had
crowns and were more aggressive. They followed their mother in lines so
I had control over which came from where. A few moms were trailed by
nearly all baby roosters. The other moms were followed by all baby
hens. My conclusion based on experiment was that chicken gender could
be determined by egg shape. I told my teachers and family but nobody
seemed interested in chicken sex.
There
are people out there who do NOT want us to get better mileage. Believe
me, their fortunes depend on the public remaining ignorant of good
mileage techniques. They have known for instance all about acetone
since the 1920s when Ethyl Corporation, Ford and GM sought alternate
additives for gasoline to prevent knock. They settled on tetraethyl and
tetramethyl lead. Many research engineers died testing lead compaounds
and more died trying to find a good substitute for lead compounds for
better anti-knock properties in gasoline. When they discovered acetone,
they found it had excellent anti-knock ability BUT it also gave
improved mileage. That killed acetone as a suitable gasoline additive.
No way would they allow better MPG. Acetone has been
suppressed ever since. In fact ANY chemical or device that improves MPG
is routinely buried. The industry has known full well that acetone
could hurt their profits if it became common knowledge. I read an
article by an industry spokesman not long ago that showed 15-percent
acetone in gasoline hurt engine performance. It did not mention knock
or emissions. However the article did mention that acetone improved the
combustibility of alcohol in gasoline. Clearly that author intended to
prevent people from using acetone, even if he had to distort the facts
to do so. For instance, fifteen-percent is about 50 times too much.
Nobody in a sane mind should ever attempt more than one-third of one
percent. So the so-calledc test was a sham.
You
may have noticed in the SmartGas articles that there is a pattern to
getting good mileage. The tips given are well researched. We first find
a gas or diesel station best for us. We get a good 195-degree
thermostat. We buy Torco Oil to eliminate unecessary friction and get
excellent ring seal. We get the drilled NGK V-power spark
plugs. Etc. We do these things routinely. THEN we add a little acetone
to the fuel. There is not just one good thing we do. There is a list of
details outlined in the SmartGas articles. They work quite well. We
cannot speak for things we have not tried ourselves.
I
published an article in 1974 that mentioned the MPG gains from acetone
and quoted Sir Harry Ricardo on the subject. I was then
threatened that if I ever mentioned the "A" word in print ever
again, I would be black-listed and never again publish in the U.S. or
work in the industry. The other implications were quite clear. That
same executive asked me (in slightly different words), "Lou, why should
we sell them gas for 65 cents a gallon when we can sell them the same
gas for $1.65?" That happened in 1976 in Ashland.
What
we face in America is the dreaded specter of rampant inflation due to
rising fuel costs. We CAN get better MPG right away and we MUST in
order to cut worldwide demand. By cutting demand, we lower the cost of
fuels. There is an excellent article on Fuel
Efficiency and the Economy in front
of me in the March-April issue of American
Scientist.
Because
of the worry expressed by many persons when they first hear of acetone,
I arranged to soak a few neoprene parts labeled 30R7 once again and
took photos. I found the worst swelling occurred with a mix of
50-percent acetone and gasoline. The parts recovered back to original
size when dried. No evidence of deterioration though. None. The
one-percent, five-percent and ten-percent mix did not exhibit any
swelling whatsoever. But that is still 20 to 30 times too much acetone.
There are people saying that 100-percent acetone deteriorates fuel
hoses. I doubt those were real fuel hoses. Yes, cheap materials such as
rubber are easily dissolved by ordinary gasoline OR straight acetone.
Ordinary gas is bad for asphalt and other common materials. It is quite
dangerous. I have never in my life attempted to use 100-percent acetone
in any car. It would be foolish to try. But I do use roughly 1/10 to
1/30 of one-percent and have for many years without problems because
that is where cars run best. Nobody should use even 1/2 of one-percent
acetone except in fiese fuel. To claim that pure acetone will damage
parts is like taking a piece that handles 100-pound loads but putting
20,000 pounds on it--then yelling, "Look, it failed." Such is not
reality. It is not ethical. A real test is to approximate real life
conditions, not fake conditions. So I now test in ten-percent and
five-percent acetone. The results are identical to testing in straight
gasoline. We use only 3 ounces per ten gallons of gas. That
insignificant amount of acetone in the fuel does NOT behave like a fuel
additive. Rather it improves vaporization, boosts MPG and drops
emissions. There is ZERO change in timing, mixture or engine settings.
All you may notice is a slight reduction in exhaust temperature due to
better combustion efficiency, much better MPG and a cleaner exhaust
system. The fuel still behaves like straight fuel. Face it, you cannot
be an expert if you have not tried it. Words alone are worthless,
mindless chatter. A famous line among researchers is, "Show
me your data or let me see your equations."
Imagine
this.
If we could double our MPG, we would automatically drop our exhaust
emissions in half because we would only be using half the fuel. We
could drive twice the distance and go twice as many days between fills.
So why is MPG ignored by the Corn Producers, the Oil Industry, Detroit,
the EPA and the Sierra Club? Can it be that these groups do not want
better MPG as a reality? It certainly appears that way.
Years
ago, we used five-percent solutions of additives and fuel to soak fuel
system parts. But we were and are still careful. Use tweezers as shown
in the photo. Keep fingers out of the chemicals. Do not breathe the
stuff. Any amount of gasoline or acetone or alcohol can become serious.
My body is covered with burns from fuel testing. Use good judgment when
doing your own testing. Keep a fire extinguisher handy. Do not use
combustibles near open flames or sparks. Keep the test area well
ventilated. Do not work alone or test drive by yourself. Let someone
else read the ScanGauge and write things down. Concentrate looking at
the road while keeping at a steady 50 MPH to get a good average MPG in
both directions.
The
parts I worry about most are fuel filters. So I recommend a new fuel
filter about once a year. I further suggest Baldwin fuel, air and oil
filters. The filters I most prefer are the metal screen filters we used
in the air force. Water will not pass through these while gasoline, jet
fuel, diesel fuel and light oil passes freely. The Air Force became a
wonderful learning experience WRT fuels in the late 50s. We had about
one aircraft accident per month at Craig AFB. Most of these were the
fault of J-33 engine failures due to fuel burning its way through the
sides of engines and the aircraft, sometimes severing control or
hydraulic lines. I had charge of testing the spray nozzles that sent
JP-4 into each inner liner to be combusted. The nozzles did not all
have a really fine spray pattern. When the engines came in for periodic
inspection, some nozzles displayed streaks or runners in the conical
spray pattern where the fuel clumped together in long streams instead
of breaking up like the rest of the spray. Examination of bad patterns
showed wear, scratches or defects in the small carbide insert that
contained the orifice, a small .090-inch bore. The ideal orifice had a
sharp, perfectly round edge without defects. The good ones produced a
steady, conical pattern that allowed good combustion within the path
leading to the turbine buckets in back of the jet engine. When I
examined the nozzles out of wrecked aircraft, I found many exhibited
bad spray patterns. Way too many. So I began to reject all the inserts
and nozzles having bad patterns. As a result our aircraft become safer
and flew better, according to the pilots. I sometimes went up to check
certain flight conditions for myself. We sent large numbers of rejected
parts to Wright-Patterson. However our crash rate dropped about
90-percent, losing only about one aircraft per year. The Air Force guys
from WPAFB investigated and accepted my findings. Facts were facts.
Taking
things a step further, I added a tiny bit of acetone to the JP-4 in the
spray booth. The nozzle spray patterns became mistier and even fogged
up the chamber so it was difficult to see the pattern clearly. Out in
the boonies sat our test cell block where we tested engines after
periodic inspection or any rework. Those with good nozzles and a tiny
bit of acetone in the fuel (about 1/2 of one-percent in JP-4) showed
better thrust. About 400 pounds better. To observe, I would stand
200-feet behind the exhaust at full throttle and see nice light-blue
flames from all the cans. But when I tried a known bad nozzle in one
can, the exhaust showed a red-orange streak coming from that can and I
condemned that engine for more rework, keeping it away from the flight
line. As usual, I passed this information up the chain as a method of
increasing the range of aircraft. I believe they did not think such a
tiny amount of acetone could do anything. But they did not do the
actual testing. I was amazed that a tiny amount was so effective. I
still am.
Only
ten years later I learned from Bob Lancaster about surface tension in
fuels. I had previously learned to only use tiny amounts of acetone
from my instructor Jack Henry in 1954 at National Schools. I had been
putting way too much acetone into my 1948 Hudson. The lesser amount
also worked much better for mileage gains in my 1949 Olds and other
cars back then. In retrospect, I stood on the experienced shoulders of
Jack Henry and Bob Lancaster. Sadly, I learned from buddies after I
left Craig AFB, that things went right back to the way they had been
before me. The fuel spray booth went unused and probably was thrown
away. I followed scientific procedures during all my efforts to develop
better spray patterns in jet engines.
Later
in 1974 in San Pedro (Wilmington), I worked on a contract job to
evaluate acetone, alcohol, water and a few other chemicals to determine
on the dyno what, if any benefits, were possible for mileage. The
Japanese car makers who hired us wanted controlled amounts of these
chemicals to be injected or sprayed below the carburetors. Any mixture
or combination was to be considered, but not to exceed one-percent. The
atmosphere, humidity and air temperature were to remain consistent
through the testing. That meant working without sleep for several days.
We requested data on the long term effects of the chemicals on our
engine parts, such as carburetor parts, fuel lines, fuel filters and
plastics in our tanks and pumps. The data they sent suggested no
problems in the concentrations they suggested which could not exceed
one-percent for any one chemical. That meant we could test up to
one-percent acetone or alcohol or water or whatever. The Japanese were
thinking of a mileage improvement device for their cars sold in Japan
to fight pollution in that country--some of the worst in the world. But
their own engineers were divided on the subject, so they sought an
independent opinion and came to hire us as a team. I supplied the
engineering proposal that went back to Japan. It was accepted and we
went ahead with preliminary tests such as soaking a few parts in
five-percent acetone, methanol and ethanol just as a precaution to
avoid possible damage to expensive dyno facility components. We
purchased only reagent grade chemicals for this test. Reagent grade
acetone is the most pure and usually available from a student science
center near a university.
Two
engines were
used. A four-banger and a Ford V-8. They flooded right off the bat from
too much mix being introduced at the same time. Each spark plug carried
a thermocouple to read cylinder temperatures. Or we swapped these with
plugs designed to read cylinder pressures. We monitored water, intake
and exhaust temperatures as well as torque, RPM and HP. My partner in
this project was very experienced but had no way to check economy like
the Japanese clients had outlined. I devised a proprietary technique to
check the economy angle on the dyno in terms of Thermal Efficiency. We
never came close to the imposed one-percent limit of how much of any
additive could be used with gasoline. The most acetone we tried was
one-half of one-percent. It proved to be way excessive and a
bad
move. The best economy readings for separate runs on alcohols came
about by eventually setting the spray flow to zero. Same for water by
setting the flow to zero. This means no alcohol or water allowed the
engine to run most efficiently. But for acetone, the best economy
readings were flow rates above zero by tiny amounts. About .05 to .25
of one-percent acetone proved best in ordinary gasoline.
Why did the Japanese hire us? We had both
published fuel stuff in obscure magazines. I guess they read it and
contacted us because their own people were at odds. Their staffs were
probably forced to seek an outside source to do the work of conducting
impartial tests. And once the initial tests are run, there is always
the task of repeating the work for verification. We were sure from the
language in the project specifications that they had done it or tried
it themselves in Japan. Plus the mileage and Thermal Efficiency testing
on a dyno is tricky to repeat for close comparison purposes and nobody
we knew could handle that trick with precision except me. Those methods
still remain proprietary. I hope to reveal them in my book on mileage.
Three
days with no sleep is like an eternity. After we were done, we
collapsed. Then I prepared a final report that we reviewed together and
mailed to Japan along with photos and documentation. I guess the
clients were disappointed that water and alcohol did not show promising
results. I also guess they did not like acetone as the good guy. But we
were paid. After I returned to my regular work, I asked several friends
and relatives to try acetone in their cars in the amount of one to
three ounces per ten gallons of gas. All of them reported gains in
mileage and engine smoothness. But for the most part nobody really
cared back then. I tried to get magazines interested, to no effect.
Months later I had a call from Wilmington and learned he tried acetone
in one of his marine diesel engines with nice success. It was from him
that I first learned engines appeared to last longer when he put tiny
amounts of acetone into gasoline and diesel fuel and tested over long
periods of time. He supposed it had to do with burning uncombusted
fuel, a factor that protected the rings and walls from fuel wash. He
predicted, "The car companies won't like it." Harold had a huge
facility full of engine dynos and test equipment including an
honest-to-goodness VCR Research Engine. What is that? It's a very
special single-cylinder (variable compression ratio) engine for testing
fuels for such things as octane rating and Thermal Efficiency. He also
designed and sold racing fuels.
I
tend to be an altruist. I suppose my idealism is why I went into
teaching. My goals were to help students as best I could. Not every
educator thinks that way. In one university job, there was an instance
when I was warned by school administration to back off on fixing a wind
tunnel that the grad students needed rather badly to finish
thesis/engineering projects. The wind tunnel was a source of severe
vibration that cracked the floors in the building, especially
the second floor. The machine could only be run at 55-percent maximum.
The noise was awful and even scary. A lot of professors in the
university had attempted to fix it. All had failed. So I was repeatedly
warned not to try it. "All the best minds in mechanical have tried for
thirty years. What makes you think you can do it?" they scoffed.
"It
is an impossible
task and cannot be attempted." "Your position could be in jeopardy."
But I wondered who had actually investigated the real causes for the
horrible vibration. None had done so recently. They only supplied words
of opposition. Just words and hollow arguments came from supposed
scientists. What a joke. Some grad students however volunteered to
help. They suffered most so it was essential to them. After getting
resentful permission and the cooperation of one wonderful professor,
Dr. Sparrow who backed his students, we tackled the job and
disassembled the wind tunnel complex. We spent a week finding the
primary and natural frequencies of the system, the gearing, electric
motor characteristics and the housing alignment. Checking one thing at
a time, we found numerous mistakes in the design. I made measurements
and drawings of new parts to be made using ball bearings instead of
tapered bearings. We re-machined several of the existing components and
realigned the large electric motor that drove the propeller. I replaced
the gears with a very slightly different tooth count and eventually
filled the gear box with 90-140-weight gear oil. When it ran
again, we heard no noise. None. Standing in the hallway, we could not
be sure the thing was actually running inside the lab. But it ran
flawlessly at double the previous speed, at 110-percent and operated
perfectly for years after that in complete silence. The students were
delighted and the wind tunnel was booked up solid for long periods in
advance. Appreciation? Not from the faculty or administration.
I
met the head of the department a day or two after the wind tunnel was
operational. He had been most severe with his dire predictions and
veiled threats. He told me, "Don't gloat, Lou. Anybody could have done
it. Anybody."
I
almost said, "So why couldn't you guys do it in 40 years of trying?"
But I am too poilite.
So
that's the kind of
goofy school that was and perhaps still is. Later that year, I
innocently asked the same head guy for an inexpensive teaching aid that
I wanted to build and was told, "Lou, we are not in the business of
teaching undergrads. WE are in the business of teaching grad students.
And don't you forget it." These are honest quotes from my experiences
at the University of Minnesota. There are examples here of
both
good and bad science.
TEST FOR YOURSELF. BELIEVE
ONLY YOUR OWN RESULTS.
We
have a crisis of biblical proportions. Write your senators. Tell
everybody these things.
