Sure, I will make it ‘simple’ for you.
***recall that you have been notified and asked why you put ‘quotes’ around certain terms, if not to be simply sarcastic. You have avoided the question.
If you have an engine in a car that gets 20 mpg,
***This begs the question of why you avoided my question, wherein it was 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?
and you tell ‘independent scientists’ that it now gets 40 mpg
***And as far as these guys are concerned they STOP RIGHT THERE. They test your claim. They verify your claim.
due to adding a CATALYST SCREEN to the carb throat ,
***It does not matter why. They have verified your claim.
but you actually have compressed Hydrogen being injected into the ports and they aren’t measuring it, would you buy the CATALYST SCREEN ?
***The claim verified was that ANY chemical means could not account for the result, it was 10X higher than ANY chemical known to exist. ANY chemical, including your Compressed Hydrogen. Any chemical.
So... you are saying that even if the device was only capable of outputting 5x the power, and the Hydrogen boosted it to 10x, that not including the Hydrogen as a ‘fuel’ for this power should not be questioned?
I avoided it because it's a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to 'get it'.
Why don't you use HTML and put others quoted comments in italics and get rid of those 'silly' asterisks? Is it laziness or ignorance?
***This begs the question of why you avoided my question, wherein it was 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?
So, unless we stick to the one LIMITED PROCESS (which you state didn't even include an OBVIOUS extraneous source of 'fuel') That IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES YOUR CASE, we are wrong?
I am sorry if you can't make the 'transmutation' between comparable measurements of mpg, bhp, and 'energy density'.
I tried to give you an example that was the simplest and that anyone with even a high school education could understand. And yet you insist on only measuring POWER IN/POWER OUT.
Could it be that his device works, but he 'upped' the power output by using compressed hydrogen? Have they been using compressed hydrogen since the early 1900's or 1968 or whatever date you choose ?
***And as far as these guys are concerned they STOP RIGHT THERE. They test your claim. They verify your claim.
***It does not matter why. They have verified your claim.
If I could get them to 'verify my claim' without asking about the giant hydrogen tank in the trunk, Then I would want them to also 'verify my claim' of a flying car.