Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms
So that we are all clear on your background and what qualifies you to speak on this subject... Are you a chemist, chemical engineer or physicist or are you simply placing all of your bets on that independent and professionally prepared reference you keep citing?
Please point out the "bullshit and marketing" from the Popular Mechanics article, Formula 1 website and or the Motor Sports Report?  I guess they all must be in kahoots with the nitrogen industry! 
Stop now you are starting to sound silly. |
My point here is that when a new technology or process is introduced which promises some improvement over the previous technology or process there should be some scientific explanation as to why it works and why it is truly an improvement.
Nothing in the Popular Mechanics, Formula F1 website, or Motor Sports Report cited any empirical evidence or scientific studies proving their claims.
The report I cited did scientifically, through controlled experimentation, prove that there is no difference between the change of pressure of nitrogen and air with respect to the change of temperature.
For what it's worth, I am an electrical engineer, employed by the nation's leading defense contractor. My wife is a chemist, with a specialty in product development, employed by one of the world's largest chemical companies.
The PV=nrT thing is just basic high school physics.