white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Not a true statement at all. I did not know I would not get the data by this point. I didn't even word it as such.

I posted in hopes of getting valid data,
without which, according to science, you cannot even make the statement that TB coatings 'probably' work inside running engines.

I was only joking that I should've bet against. Did you really not realize it was a sense of humor, or are you grasping at straws to discredit any argument against your own?

Dart331Stroker

No he isnt going to get test data, because even if a scientist were to disprove the "facts", he would believe the scientist, which again is fine, maybe the mad scientist can build his motors. Personally I will let Dick, or David Reher build mine, scientist do nothing but waste time and money. It doesnt apply here. You would think a some people would appreciate a company coming on here and saying hey for over 8 years we have done this, and it works, we were the guinea pig, we know it works. Maybe he wants the scientic metallurgical breakdown of the alloy his crank, rods, pistons,camshaft, oil, transmission fluid, gear dope, rubber the tires are made out of, and what Dupont used on the paint on his car so he know what the coefficient drag is.. Bet you never thought of that, paint can actually slow your car down...

How many people on here think more octane fuel makes your car faster??
Prove scientifically what octane has to do with going faster??

I mean seriously you can bring science into alot of stuff when it comes to racing, and in some cases it may back something up and in some what works in the engine might not be backed up by science. Engine builders are a weird group of thinkers and are not scientist, but I bet they could disprove a scientific theory.

You want a scientific experiment done, send me one piston and we will do the top, you waste your time and money taking it to some college for them to do the testing, and no matter what they find, again we dont care, we know what it does, and again you dont have to buy it or believe it!!!!!!!

KVU

iTrader: (1)

Is that how you sell the racing teams on it? Science has it's place everywhere in a running engine. Physics, fluid dynamics, thermo dynamics, etc all play a critical role. You don't have any data, just word of mouth and belief...

Dart331Stroker

We dont have to sell it to racing teams, how do you think we started, we use to get our stuff coated at PolyDyn, then we hired Omar from who use to work for PolyDyn, and now we offer coatings, and have for years. We dont have to sell it to racers, they already do it, its John Q. Public that is the skeptic.

Racers dont line up outside their local univertsity looking to have their pistons analyzed they already know this works, duh!!

Every IHRA, NHRA Pro team, and I am sure about 85-90% of class racers also use coatings. NMRA, NSCA, ASA, etc..... doesnt matter who I list, you again think this is a sales pitch, its not. DONT DO IT NOBODY IS TWISTING ANYBODYS ARMS!!!!

PRO RACERS DONT NEED CONVINCING THEY ALREADY DO IT.........

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH

OK now I need to start charging for all this information...

Dart331Stroker

Also it isnt word of mouth and belief, we use it, we run it, and we have proven it works, that too me would mean more than some jack *** scientist, just like flow numbers and dyno numbers, until you run it they dont mean ****.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Of course I would question them. I'd wonder how much money they spent on research and how badly they needed to recoup on that investment even if it didn't work out in some applications. As long as the idea works they are golden right?
There is something to be said for those who do not question, however it isn't very flattering.

In situations where the people involved cannot figure out what is happening inside an engine, it simply means they are unable to accurately account for all variables involved, not that an engine doesn't obey the laws of physics.
With so many variables a power difference of 5 to 8 horsepower falls well within acceptable error for re-testing an engine that has been disassembled and reassembled at least once. Then again without seeing the entire curve we may not be aware of any power losses that might have shown somewhere on the graph.

I am all for real-world testing, but when small changes are to be measured, a simpler experiment is in order.

Given the importance heat absorbtion in the chamber has on combustion efficiency, I would expect to see larger power gains from an effective TB coating... something well outside any range of testing error.

Using three or four different types of coatings on various parts throughout an engine, then reassembling it and measuring power differences so close to the testing error just doesn't cut it as far as being evidence to support the effectiveness of just the TB coating in the engine.

If there is valid research that applies then it should be published, so I will look for it.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

I don't think you truly know what a scientist is besides what you may have seen in movies.
Before a scientist can publish anything as fact it has to pass the most scrutinizing reviews of his peers. There is nothing more credible period.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

And I thought that's what this section of the forum was about.
Yes a theory can be disproven, but I'd take your bet on your builders disproving scientific fact. Apparently scientists field a lot more questioning of statements than famous engine builders have to.

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

Still haven't answered my question about why you keep posting if you aren't getting the results you want.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

I thought this should answer it, unless your particular question was only for rhetorical effect.

Further if you think I'm set in stone not to believe, or I'm only trying to disprove, then let me ask you this. Why did I buy the materials and equipment to complete the coating procedure myself? That cost money and time. I would be able to do coatings for friends or even for profit. It would have been very nice to get positive results. My tests did not.
It would not be ethical for me to advise anyone to use something that I can't say for sure I know works.
I am thinking of re-doing the tests with 100% radiant heat, but I have to keep in mind that coming up with new ways to test until I happen on one that seems to work is just bad science.

Someone assuming that my application process wasn't done to manufacturers specifications to the letter would be wrong. I have a set of pistons that was professionally done that I can also use to test next time around which would negate that factor.

'hoochie2

White2001s10 - Why don't you take 331stroker up on his offer? send him a piston, "test" it how ever you want and STOP BEING A JACKASS.

Maybe you could "test" it using something more scientific than a lump of playdough. Nice! I bet you were great at that science fair ... "well Jimmy photosynthesis sounds great, but you aren't provin' crap to me unless you plant that fern in 4" of playdough and do it again"

'hoochie2

White2001s10 - Another take on your "test" and some info on your assumption polishing is the way to go : http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...er=asc&start=0
I'm sure you'll disagree with these guys as well - maybe you could replace Darin Morgan @ Reher-Morrison a "scientist" such as yourself could probably disprove many of their record setting acheivements.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

It's nice to see someone make a point so eloquently. I must have missed it but what would your superior choice be for holding a thermocouple against the metal in a controlled manner without becoming a heat-sink itself?

I wasn't aware that the speedtalk forum was the end all of knowledge. I'll try to keep up better.

I already knew that carbon build-up was a great insulator, but its rough and flakey texture creates hot-spots that ask for trouble. I have photos of carbon on piston tops glowing orange when all else is fine. Polished aluminum doesn't glow as a solid.

You can do better than that.

KVU

iTrader: (1)

http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...er=asc&start=0

I agree with most of that thread. The HARD data I have seen favors polished piston tops, just like the japs. White2001s10 is my personal friend. We have discussed this several times. I think the coatings work while he needs proof/verification through data analysis. In the end, I couldn't tell him how they work or how to test it. From what I understand, there is a naturally forming thin layer of molecules on the conbustion chamber surface. That alone prevents detonation. The layer of H2O(IIRC) can be wiped away from one detonation event thus creating a hot spot. Thermal coatings promote strong molecular adhesion to the combustion chamber, allowing the natural surface layer to "bond" to the coating W/O buildup. In turn, virutally no chances of a hot spot. The end result is increased knock suppression. Decrease sensitivity to detonation and the tuning can be more aggressive. So gains could be considered from increased tuning capability, not the coating alone.

Maybe you guys should step back and consider white2001s10's point of view(in the best way I can relate). Imagine the year is hmmm 1940 and that Holley just came out with the latest intake. They claim an increase of 80hp at the flywheel for all applications. You have never heard of flywheel HP let alone know how it's measured. Your friends have high HP vehicles and see various results. So you would like to verify if this intake really works before spending your paycheck on it. How would you like to have ADVERTISED results and no way to KNOW it works for a FACT? That's like saying, "My calibration increased performance by 50HP across the entire RPM range. No need for dyno verification, you'll feel it every time the acelerator pedal is applied!" ....

KVU

iTrader: (1)

What if I said I know this dude and he can fly. You say I'm full of ****. After you talk to the guy, you believe he can fly too. Your friend ask you if you seen him fly, you say nope. Would you consider your friend an ******* if he went to this said dude and demanded him to fly? How would you feel if the dude tried to fly but didn't? Or said he never tested flight under a controlled environment, that he just feels it to be true? What if the US president even backed up this guy's claim?

MadBill

One of the problems here seems to be that the referenced "5 to 8 HP" dyno gain is considered statistically insignificant. I would guess the last 50 HP (or more) for current Nextel Cup engines was achieved via increments of no more that 1 or 2 HP, maybe less...

sho-me speed

iTrader: (55)

He's not asking himt to fly. He is asking him to tell him how he defied the laws of science to do it. Compare apples to apples.

DavidNJ

The key here may be on cost/benefit. If you are in a competitive racing situation that allowed it, you would do it. However, if you are making tradeoffs between a bigger TB, better heads, more tuning time, or coatings...then the answer isn't so clear.

Or rather, the improvements of coatings are below those of components.

When the racing is competitive or the limits are close, and the $$$ are available, then coating is an integral part of the program.

Z28SSMAN

iTrader: (2)

LOL

I'm certainly not going to go out and get my parts coated, but I liken the debate to a recent conversation I had with a college professor. He had immense knowledge...especially regarding "theories", but as far as surviving in the workplace outside of college?...I seriously doubt he could survive. Why? Because he had no common sense.

After reading the posts, the next time I see Warren Johnson, I think I'll tell him face to face about how he needs to prove to me that his coated parts give him an advantage over his opponents who don't use coated parts. If he elects to not prove that his investment in the process gives him an advantage, I'll continue to follow him around and imply that he's obviously not as smart as me because he can't/won't prove it.

LOL

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Implied credibility or intimidation is one thing. I would then ask you if you were willing to bet your life on something Warren Johnson believes.

I submit that your implied credibility is there, and is shown by the asking of questions and willingness to do actual tests. Clearly a lot of people believe in the TB coatings for various reasons even if it usually just a feeling in most cases. The problem is that without direct (not implied) observation, and test data, then there is no probability that can be assigned either way.

If I was in Johnson's place and could take advantage of a sponsorship, and be able to use the coatings without them causing any harm or costing any power, then I would have to consider it. If I were Johnson's competitor and had reason to believe that he was enjoying some kind of advantage by running the coatings, then I would likely forgo expensive testing and assume that my competitor or the manufacturer has already done them. I would be compelled to pay money for the coatings in order to even the playing field.
In case you missed the point, this series of actions proves absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of coatings. Selectively picking out only successful racers who use them also proves nothing.
Using ideas like that, it would be quite simple to show a high probability that a certain paint scheme on a racecar would ensure victories.

I'm still wondering why all of the pro-arguments so far have come without the requested data to back them up.