| That is much older and way bigger than you or me. So I won't insult you by saying I respectfully disagree, since you are clearly wrong or do not understand the premise, and I think you would respect me more for not condoning your error. In conclusion, you and your cohorts amassed data about different fuels and their peformance is Z's that may be valid, but was not collected and therefore cannot reported in a scientific manner. That's not an insult, it's simply fact. I think you might be emotionally personalizing because those efforts represent a lot of work, and no one likes to hear their work falls short of a standard. The scientific method has no room for emotion. Your data has street cred and may be correct, but does not rise to the level of scientific proof, which is all I said, and irrefutable by anyone who understands basic research and expermental science. Not only have I worked in this field, I have also published original research in peer reviewed journals as the principal investigator. I believe you may be in over your head on this, but feel to have the last word if helps you. I consider the subject matter closed.
 "Straight-line acceleration is probably the first aspect of
automotive performance that any intelligent driver gets bored with."
Peter Gregg "We owe a lot to the dragsters.
They always break something,
figure out a way to beef up the part
and then the benefit trickles
down."
Robo "Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that
counts can be counted."
Einstein
|
