Discussion
Got an email from these guys about this fuel saver device?!.. Sounds too simple to be true..
http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
nekrum said:
Got an email from these guys about this fuel saver device?!.. Sounds too simple to be true..
http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
Dunno about this one, most will claim BS, but only thru ignorance and arrogance. Few people ever use reason, logic or fact.http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
However in this world that we live in, scams are plentiful, so be careful. Do your own research and make your own decision.
Personally I'd have a look at this: http://www.broquet.co.uk/
I say this for several reasons:
1. They have been around too long for it to be a simple scam
2. Everyone who uses them and reports about it seems to like the product and recommend it, i.e. it works
3. The only people to bad mouth it are those who have never used it and have zero experience with it
4. Both Subaru UK and Ralliart have used them
5. Far too many people using them in vintage cars without a single bad word from them (if you look into it)
Personally I don't know if it works or not, at present I don't have a vehicle I want to try them in, however having done research on them, when opportunity presents itself I probably will try one.
Hope this helps.
nekrum said:
Got an email from these guys about this fuel saver device?!.. Sounds too simple to be true..
http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
Proof that pseudo nonscience can be used to sell things other than face cream. http://www.lpgweb.info/fuelsaver/how.htm
it is just a pyramid selling scam that has been around for years. Some idiot poeple I knew lost a few grand each, back the the early 90's, investing in this wonderful device. For some reason they got most upset when anyone tried to tell them it was a load of cack. If you want to alter the magnetic properties of molecules you need massive electro-magnets, eg NMR machines.
If this was so good and so cheap, why don't you try to sell it to the big car manufacturers for £1 a car and sit back and watch the money roll in!!
If this was so good and so cheap, why don't you try to sell it to the big car manufacturers for £1 a car and sit back and watch the money roll in!!
Edited by R39S1 on Wednesday 15th October 15:35
Roop said:
Interesting read, although no more evidence based than anyone else's claims.Looks like the £1 neodymium magnets you see attached to PC cables to reduce interference sold for 50 quid
Also, here's how you break down Hydrocarbon compounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocracking
Can't see any magnets or resonant frequencies in there
Also, here's how you break down Hydrocarbon compounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocracking
Can't see any magnets or resonant frequencies in there
Edited by OJ on Wednesday 15th October 15:38
300bhp/ton said:
Roop said:
Interesting read, although no more evidence based than anyone else's claims.Back in the UK, my company operated the websites of the independent resellers of these magnetic doodahs. Their products are utter, utter snake oil. They were perpetually dodging advertising standards authority etc. and reporting the results of very flaky tests they had run.
utter b
ks!
It suggests that the HC chains are broken to allow beter mixing with Oxygen for a more efficient burn.
This is talking about better mixing.Even if we gave this bks the benefit of the doubt for a sec This can also be done by injecting under higher fuel pressures on a port injected engine (note I DIDNT talk about GDi or diesels). Higher injection pressures on Port fuel injected engines (PFIs) don't add up to better fuel economy. Better atomisation-most likely, which allows perhaps leaner mixure- without possibly going into misfire- but rememember lean mixtures are not allowed due to catalytic converters anyway. If better atomisation alone made such a big difference- why did mechanically injected PFI cars of the 1960s inject at around 23 bar and then K jetronic went down to 5 bar, with modern cars injecting at just over 2?
If HC chains are broken this would change the octane rating. Somehow I doubt it.
Combustion efficiency is complicated. To analyse it you can look at burn rates (0-5% burn, 10-90% burn) and Rate of Heat release, it is highly unlikely this will effect either. Again - giving them the benefit of the doubt- even if it did- faster burn rates alone- by themselves dont improve engine fuel economy. They have to be accompanied with leaner mixtures (if that were possible) a recalibration , perhaps a higher compression ratio and may be even using higher EGR.
ks!It suggests that the HC chains are broken to allow beter mixing with Oxygen for a more efficient burn.
This is talking about better mixing.Even if we gave this b
ks the benefit of the doubt for a sec This can also be done by injecting under higher fuel pressures on a port injected engine (note I DIDNT talk about GDi or diesels). Higher injection pressures on Port fuel injected engines (PFIs) don't add up to better fuel economy. Better atomisation-most likely, which allows perhaps leaner mixure- without possibly going into misfire- but rememember lean mixtures are not allowed due to catalytic converters anyway. If better atomisation alone made such a big difference- why did mechanically injected PFI cars of the 1960s inject at around 23 bar and then K jetronic went down to 5 bar, with modern cars injecting at just over 2?If HC chains are broken this would change the octane rating. Somehow I doubt it.
Combustion efficiency is complicated. To analyse it you can look at burn rates (0-5% burn, 10-90% burn) and Rate of Heat release, it is highly unlikely this will effect either. Again - giving them the benefit of the doubt- even if it did- faster burn rates alone- by themselves dont improve engine fuel economy. They have to be accompanied with leaner mixtures (if that were possible) a recalibration , perhaps a higher compression ratio and may be even using higher EGR.
Can't say I like their definitions of "hydrocarbon" (a chemical compound comprising hydrogen and carbon atoms) or "hydrocarbon chains" (a chain of (hydro)carbon atoms bonded to each other within a molecule). Regular fuel primarily contains octanes (i.e. a hydrocarbon chain comprising 8 carbon atoms).
Given that I have never used a magnet to perform any organic chemistry reaction, nor has any organic compound I have ever synthesized been "broken down" when being analyzed in an NMR machine (enormous electromagnet!) it should be clear that this product is absolute b0llocks.
I'm willing to bet the claimed improvements from satisfied customers are down to an automotive placebo effect. I think we can imagine the kind of people that might buy such a product...
Given that I have never used a magnet to perform any organic chemistry reaction, nor has any organic compound I have ever synthesized been "broken down" when being analyzed in an NMR machine (enormous electromagnet!) it should be clear that this product is absolute b0llocks.
I'm willing to bet the claimed improvements from satisfied customers are down to an automotive placebo effect. I think we can imagine the kind of people that might buy such a product...
Whitean3 said:
nor has any organic compound I have ever synthesized been "broken down" when being analyzed in an NMR machine
Try mistaking the CDCl3 bottle for D20. Did that a couple of times and you'd be surprised how quickly things break down. Also spend 20 minutes in the pit trying to tune the bugger before figuring out why it woudn't work. chippy17 said:
I have a large consigment of snake oil on the way, anyone want any, cures all ill's, honestly
You need to find 'open minded' people like 300 bhp/ton and Welshbeef.'Open minded' folks are the mainstay of rampant consumerism and they're usually proud and exclaim their 'open mindedness' from the roof tops to boot
Roop said:
300bhp/ton said:
Roop said:
Interesting read, although no more evidence based than anyone else's claims.Back in the UK, my company operated the websites of the independent resellers of these magnetic doodahs. Their products are utter, utter snake oil. They were perpetually dodging advertising standards authority etc. and reporting the results of very flaky tests they had run.
Some brothers, name of Wright, once had the idea of flying as a way of travel. Seemed pretty far fetched at the time, and many a scientist would have proven it an impossibility....
300bhp/ton said:
Roop said:
300bhp/ton said:
Roop said:
Interesting read, although no more evidence based than anyone else's claims.Back in the UK, my company operated the websites of the independent resellers of these magnetic doodahs. Their products are utter, utter snake oil. They were perpetually dodging advertising standards authority etc. and reporting the results of very flaky tests they had run.
Some brothers, name of Wright, once had the idea of flying as a way of travel. Seemed pretty far fetched at the time, and many a scientist would have proven it an impossibility....
In comparison, selling a 50p magnet for £50 and claiming miraculous efficiency increases over the development work of the manufacturer with their budget of £10's of millions, then using bunkum science to back up your theories...
Whitean3 said:
I'm willing to bet the claimed improvements from satisfied customers are down to an automotive placebo effect. I think we can imagine the kind of people that might buy such a product...
But how can that be a justified statement?Some claim superunleaded or V-Power diesel offer nothing, yet just as many will say they do offer something.
Some people will claim that their car runs like crap on supermarket petrol, yet based on what proof?
The differences are of a similar ilk.
In fact, to take it to extreme, in a thread today I read someone saying a 140bhp Golf diesel goes as well as a 170bhp one, as in no difference. If they can't notice a 30hp and a whole load more torque difference. Then I'm pretty sure they won't notice more subtle changes.
I'm not saying you are wrong, or disputing the claims on these so called fuel savers. Just your justification on how they must ALL be lies and deceit.
300bhp/ton said:
Some brothers, name of Wright, once had the idea of flying as a way of travel. Seemed pretty far fetched at the time, and many a scientist would have proven it an impossibility....
Comparing the advent of first man made flight to improving 100 year old well established technology that has billions of pounds worth of R&D expenditure every year amongst tens of thousands of engineersMarquis_Rex said:
chippy17 said:
I have a large consigment of snake oil on the way, anyone want any, cures all ill's, honestly
You need to find 'open minded' people like 300 bhp/ton and Welshbeef.'Open minded' folks are the mainstay of rampant consumerism and they're usually proud and exclaim their 'open mindedness' from the roof tops to boot
A scientist does not accept here say, the seek proof and as you said keep an open mind.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff