Gas saving device.

digitydash

Active Member
Cheaper than a hybrid car or truck.I am thinking of maybe geting one in a month or so for my work truck.I am using about $575 a month in my truck with it only have a 4 cyl.
 

miaheatlvr

Active Member
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2599990
Cheaper than a hybrid car or truck.I am thinking of maybe geting one in a month or so for my work truck.I am using about $575 a month in my truck with it only have a 4 cyl.

AMAZING,, but i wonder if it takes away from the cars abilities at all?
 

bronco300

Active Member
any clue if this device will even raise those vehicles that already have high MPG? and even more so, still get up to 60% difference..
 

blaze98

Member
Even at $1200 a 61% boost in fuel output is amazing, you are guaranteed to make your money back.
 

digitydash

Active Member
I am not sure if it takes anything away from them.I wouldn't think it would all it is doing is makeing you car use all of the fuel instead of puting raw fuel in the exaust.
Bronco I would think if it is not a hybrid car it should increase gas mileage regardless of what it gets already.
 

nordy

Active Member
Anybody hear the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is"? A couple of points here: First of all, modern fuel injected computer controlled engines DO NOT waste 15% of their fuel down the tailpipe. Nope, doesn't happen. No engine uses 100% of it's fuel, but 15% lost? No. Your OBDII modern engine would absolutely set a check engine light if 15% of gasoline used was sent down the tailpipe.
Second, so this "gizmo" sends hydrogen to the engine? Just where does this "hydrogen" come from? Not from the air certainly and if the "gizmo" creates hydrogen, that process, which can be done from water, uses a huge amount of energy. Just where does the energy required to split water come from? Besides, hydrogen, which can be used as fuel for modified internal combustion engines, combines (combusts) with oxygen (burns) to produce the same type of explosive gases that gasoline does when it explodes in the engines combustion chamber. It does nothing to any unburned gasoline. Nothing.
If, on the highly unlikely chance that this "gizmo" does anything at all, it would only be because it is some type of source of fuel that replaces some of the gasoline normally used by an internal combustion engine.
Otto cycle engines, like gasoline and diesel cars and trucks found on the road today, are not very thermally efficient as much of the energy released by combustion is wasted as heat and just some of it goes to moving pistons and producing propulsive force. that is the area where internal combustion engines are inefficient, not in wasted fuel going down the tailpipe.
Thirdly, why does this "gizmo" cost $1400? I'll tell you why, it's because the producers of it want/need the money and the more they can get away with (hence the extremely high price!) the sooner, the nicer of a beachfront villa they can afford in Cancun!
If the "gizmo" is some type of injection device (and water and water methanol injection units are well known and used by hod rodders and racers), it can not possibly hold enough fuel (hydrogen or "whatever") to possibly produce/release enough energy to account for the reported decrease in gasoline consumption. Could not possibly. Period, end of story.
Could the "gizmo" produce some type of mileage increase? Lets see the double blind studies run by a neutral lab that document that and explain just how it happens.
Bottom line, it takes energy to move objects in this world of ours. Energy comes from somewhere, not out of thin air or from magical devices supported by pseudoscientific babble from the makers of those devices. Reduced energy use in OTR (on the road) vehicles can certainly come from increased thermal effieiency, from reduced weight of motor vehicles, from good and proper maintenance, from new technology (hybrid gas electric cars) and from modern computer controls on those vehicles engines. It does not come from from a little bottle, or even a big bottle, of some mystery product strapped onto a cars engine.
Phew, Rant over! Flames welcome!
Just where does the energy required to
 

triga22

Active Member
Why done we switch to hydrogen? Cheap, Reliable, Never goes away, no emissions. Only diffence is it takes 15 min to fill up 15 min or $80 Which one?
 

bang guy

Moderator
I never trust articles that are bad at math. It means nobody that knows what they are doing actually checked the results.
Before: we were averaging roughly 9.4 miles to the gallon
After: we were now averaging 23.2 miles to the gallon
the bad math: That's 61% better than the gas mileage we were previously getting
23.2mpg isn't 61% better, it's 247% better.
Sorry, that's just bogus.
 

wangotango

Active Member
Or you can pop on an ECO-AQUALIZER and magically never have to fill the gas tank ever again.
I think the Mythbusters tested a few gas-saving thingies. Don't think any of them worked

-Justin
 

digitydash

Active Member
I emailed him and asked how they came up with the MPG.I don't think the news would put it on their if it did not work.They have discredited alot of product that say they save gas so it has to work.Their addition does suck though.I will post the email when I get it back.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2600371
I emailed him and asked how they came up with the MPG.I don't think the news would put it on their if it did not work.They have discredited alot of product that say they save gas so it has to work.Their addition does suck though.I will post the email when I get it back.

I obviously have no knowledge of the testing procedures they employed but dynamometers can be set for "load testing" and "no load testing".
The results are very consistent with what a large motor would do if tested under full load (9.4mpg) and if the same dynamometer were set to no load (23.2).
They mention a road test with the device (16.1 mpg) but they suspiciously omit what the van typically showed for mpg without the device.
I smell manipulation. I would not trust anything further they have to say about it.
If someone else tested the device I might pay attention but they had their chance and they failed big time.
 

nordy

Active Member
Originally Posted by TriGa22
http:///forum/post/2600218
Why done we switch to hydrogen? Cheap, Reliable, Never goes away, no emissions. Only diffence is it takes 15 min to fill up 15 min or $80 Which one?
Now here's another fairy tale for ya-the miracle fuel hydrogen. Oh yes, hydrogen is an almost ideal fuel, from a combustion efficiency standpoint but there's just a little point that supporters forget to tell everybody about. Making hydrogen does in fact take huge amounts of energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Anybody care to say where that energy is going to come from? Coal fired power plants? Oil powered power plants? Natural gas powered power plants? How will that energy use be replaced?
Large scale use of hydrogen only makes even minimal sense if the required electricity comes from renewable energy sources such as solar (developing technology) and hydro (pretty much tapped out) or from nuclear power. That still means a huge number of new power plants and a huge increase in generation capacity. And then there's biofuels-nobody seems to talk about the total energy budget that must include fossil fuels used to produce the biomass used to make ethanol, or the fossil fuel energy used to actually manufacture the ethanol from that biomass. Some calculations show that there is a net loss, at least right now in the good 'ol USA, resulting from the production of corn based ethanol.
The answer for us? A real national program to 1) reduce the use of fossil fuels 2) increase the use of efficient renewable energy sources 3) more, much more, use of nuclear power. Not pie in the sky magical devices "tested" by television news departments!

Click and Clack have word for things like this fuel saving device: BOGUS!!!!
There has not been one of these miracle fuel saving devices ever produced or promoted that has ever come close to reproducing the results claimed by their snake oil peddling salesmen. None.
 

digitydash

Active Member
Originally Posted by Nordy
http:///forum/post/2600413
Now here's another fairy tale for ya-the miracle fuel hydrogen. Oh yes, hydrogen is an almost ideal fuel, from a combustion efficiency standpoint but there's just a little point that supporters forget to tell everybody about. Making hydrogen does in fact take huge amounts of energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Anybody care to say where that energy is going to come from? Coal fired power plants? Oil powered power plants? Natural gas powered power plants? How will that energy use be replaced?
Large scale use of hydrogen only makes even minimal sense if the required electricity comes from renewable energy sources such as solar (developing technology) and hydro (pretty much tapped out) or from nuclear power. That still means a huge number of new power plants and a huge increase in generation capacity. And then there's biofuels-nobody seems to talk about the total energy budget that must include fossil fuels used to produce the biomass used to make ethanol, or the fossil fuel energy used to actually manufacture the ethanol from that biomass. Some calculations show that there is a net loss, at least right now in the good 'ol USA, resulting from the production of corn based ethanol.
The answer for us? A real national program to 1) reduce the use of fossil fuels 2) increase the use of efficient renewable energy sources 3) more, much more, use of nuclear power. Not pie in the sky magical devices "tested" by television news departments!

Click and Clack have word for things like this fuel saving device: BOGUS!!!!
There has not been one of these miracle fuel saving devices ever produced or promoted that has ever come close to reproducing the results claimed by their snake oil peddling salesmen. None.
Funny thing Marijuana makes 20x the amount of ethenal then corn does.
 

digitydash

Active Member
Here is my reply I got from him.
Here's how we did it. We filled up our tank and let the pump shut off automatically. We then put it on the dyno with a starting milage on the odometer of 125,691. We ran it 20 minutes at 55mph and put 21 miles on. We then topped the tank off, and put 2.216 gallons in our tank. Divde 21 by 2.216 and you get 9.4.
We then repeated the test a month later. We filled up, and started the dyno at 126,566. We ran the machine for 20 minutes at 55mph. We put twenty miles on. We then filled up again, and put .862 gallons in our tank. Divide 20 by .862 and you get 23.2mpg.
Now take the difference between the amount of gas that we put into each tank. 2.216 minus .862 equals 1.3.
Take the 1.3 and divide it 2.216, which was the original amount of gas we put into the tank. That equals 61-percent.
If you think this math doesn't work, I'd more than happy to hear back from you.
 

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Nordy
http:///forum/post/2600413
Now here's another fairy tale for ya-the miracle fuel hydrogen. Oh yes, hydrogen is an almost ideal fuel, from a combustion efficiency standpoint but there's just a little point that supporters forget to tell everybody about. Making hydrogen does in fact take huge amounts of energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. Anybody care to say where that energy is going to come from? Coal fired power plants? Oil powered power plants? Natural gas powered power plants? How will that energy use be replaced?
Large scale use of hydrogen only makes even minimal sense if the required electricity comes from renewable energy sources such as solar (developing technology) and hydro (pretty much tapped out) or from nuclear power. That still means a huge number of new power plants and a huge increase in generation capacity. And then there's biofuels-nobody seems to talk about the total energy budget that must include fossil fuels used to produce the biomass used to make ethanol, or the fossil fuel energy used to actually manufacture the ethanol from that biomass. Some calculations show that there is a net loss, at least right now in the good 'ol USA, resulting from the production of corn based ethanol.
The answer for us? A real national program to 1) reduce the use of fossil fuels 2) increase the use of efficient renewable energy sources 3) more, much more, use of nuclear power. Not pie in the sky magical devices "tested" by television news departments!

Click and Clack have word for things like this fuel saving device: BOGUS!!!!
There has not been one of these miracle fuel saving devices ever produced or promoted that has ever come close to reproducing the results claimed by their snake oil peddling salesmen. None.
I saw a thing on Discovery channel a few months ago about some scientists, I think in Australia, that came up with a machine about the size of a soda machine that used solar power to split the water molecules and produce hydrogen. I can see it working great in the desert outback of Australia, but here in the US where we have such different weather patterns all over the place I am not sure if it would really be all that effective.
 

nordy

Active Member
Sorry, but more bad math there!
"Take the 1.3 and divide it 2.216, which was the original amount of gas we put into the tank. That equals 61-percent."
What does this have to do with anything? Why would someone divide the difference between 2 rates by one of the rates and then say the result (61%) is the increase in fuel economy? The fuel mileage increase is 23.2/9.4 and that equals, drum roll here, hold your breath now-247%. Just what Bang Guy stated, of course. Or, take the claimed amounts of gas used in the 2 test runs-2.216/.862 and you get 2.57 times as much fuel consumed in the "before" test run.
Just like bang Guy said in his post, and in the figures you quote-the increase in fuel milage and the decrease in fuel used are not 61% but are 247%. However, not only is there no credible, understandable, or sensible explanation of how the "gizmo" might do its magic, the potential for error in filling up tanks using an automatic shutoff is huge. Plus of course, there is the issue of dynamometer manipulation mention by Bang Guy (sorry to keep quoting you, but I'm on a roll here!). Plus, this story is based on one partial fill up of less than one gallon? And that is grounds for such an incredible claim as a 247% (not 61%, BTW) in fuel mileage? Incredible claims like 247% fuel mileage increases require real, reproducible, documented, and explainable results and data to back up such a claim.
As I mentioned in my earlier rant, not a single "miracle gas saving device" has ever been tested and found to deliver on the claims of its promoters. Not one, ever.
I don't mean this as a flame or personal attack, and I hope you don't consider it so. I am just a very skeptical person, with good reason, and am on a mission to support critical thinking and the rigorous use of the scientific method when investigating anything new. Lets see the reproducible evidence from an independent test lab on this "gizmo" that supports their claims-produce that and I will consider that evidence. Or, do they have something to hide?
I would love to see Adam and Jamie skewer this device on one of their shows. I can just hear a loud emphatic "Busted!" after they put it through its paces!
 

threed240

Member
Here's another loop hole in this. Hydrogen is extreamly volatile! Hydrogens octane rating is around 130, where as the typical vehicle is designed to run on 87-93 octane gas. In order for a gasoline engine to run on this high of an octane, the compression would need to increase dramatically. Hydogen burns so hot, it would cause detonation inside the combustion chamber, thus, burning a hole in your piston. This rig makes no sense. Its just like that magnet garbage you could put on either side of your fuel lines that was supposed to improve fuel mpg. If this device worked, it would be all over the news. There is "NO" quick fix to our situation.
 

nordy

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2600659
I saw a thing on Discovery channel a few months ago about some scientists, I think in Australia, that came up with a machine about the size of a soda machine that used solar power to split the water molecules and produce hydrogen. I can see it working great in the desert outback of Australia, but here in the US where we have such different weather patterns all over the place I am not sure if it would really be all that effective.
This is where the future of energy production is-talented inventors using the latest generation of efficient solar cells to produce electricity to either pump back into the grid or to produce hydrogen for motor transport use and reduce out use of fossil fuels. Australia is a great place for that, a lot of sun and no huge native fossil fuel deposits. If something like this could be packaged and sold as a stand alone individual consumer accesible power source, and infra structure is able to plug into it, that would be, well, really cool!
 
Top