More miles per gallon, Absolute scam?

but I'm just curious how others in the engineering community deal with the question of absolute.

Very good question.

The answer? Always with the caveat...'I believe' or similar.

My Brother was in court as a witness to a road acident...the prossecution asked if the guy who stepped into the road was drunk.

My Brother replied.
He couldn't possibly know, however the guy appeared slightly unsteady, but that could be due to many factors other than being drunk!

Which is exactly the point...in a deposition one can only report one's observation or ones own actions...not draw conclusions.

One can appear drunk without being so...in fact actors are well paid to perform such feats. (mind you they're probably drunk anyway)

Del

Hello YWROADRUNNER

As Del the cat says above, all a reseller has to say is that they believe........

Reading the description: <"....Once installed, it reformulates your fuel and suppresses bacterial growth for power gains and more miles per gallon. Allows engine to extract maximum energy from the fuel with minimal emissions. It's superior to additives—won't dissolve, deteriorate or lose it potency. Maintenance free and never needs replacing. Won't affect vehicle manufacturer's warranty. For all cars, trucks, SUVs, vans. Please note: not for sale in Oregon.....">

Perhaps the reason the expensive but useless device is <"....not for sale in Oregon....">, is because it is manufactured in Oregon, and the makers do not want a steady stream of angry customers a'turning up on their doorstep, wanting their hard-earned cash back.

<"....My personal opinion is its primary function is to extract money from wallets.....">

"I believe" you are correct, "I understand" it appears "to the best of my knowledge" to be a device which extracts cash from the credulous.

You could "have a go", but Sears and other sellers always have the out clause: "We believe" or "To the best of our knowledge", "We understand", and similar legal escape mechanisms.

Kind Regards....

Spark,

The contact info for this product is an address in Connecticut. Not an Oregon product. I think the reason they don't sell in Oregon is that our definition of truth is a little less flexible than other places.

LG_DAVE

I am reminded of the notice:

INGREDIANTS IN THIS PRODUCT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO CAUSE CANCER IN CALIFORNIA

My solution? Don't take the product with me when I go to California.

Bill

Good solution.

The device wouldn't work in Oregon, so leave it at the border. Of course it wouldn't work anywhere else either, so you may as well just leave it on the ground when you leave.

Hello LG_Dave

That sign at left says it all.

Kind Regards....

You are correct Sparkstation.

Let me amend my advice as follows:

Leave it in a trash container when you leave

To save yourself a trip to the store and then have to lug that dubious product to a state border, just empty your wallet directly into your own home trash can and be done with all that other hassle.

I don't buy much at Sears these days because of products like that.

I was in Sears once, looking at window-type air conditioners. The regular salesman in that department was out to lunch and so the guy from the washer/dryer section filled in. A real sleazebag, too.

"I'm interested in buying a window air conditioner. What do you know about this one?" (an Emerson Quiet-Kool unit I eventually bought elsewhere).

"These units are really great. This one can tell if you're comfortable."

(!!!)

"Oh? How does it 'know' if I'm comfortable or not?"

"It automatically adjusts to your comfort level."

"Really!? Is it telepathic?"

(he didn't know what the word 'telepathic' meant, judging from his puzzled look)

"What if I'm comfortable and my wife (who is always cold) is not comfortable? Does it split the difference?"

(he starts to fidget)

"What if I'm throwing a party? Does it sense the comfort level of each person there and take an average? What if it's wrong? Does it apologize for its mistake?"

Salesman: "I think I'm needed elsewhere..."

"No doubt. By the way, I'm looking for a washer and dryer that I can control with my mind. You sell those, too, right?"

It's a real problem. When you make a statement like "I'm absolutely certain the car's speed was 25 mph +/- 10 mph.", lawyers turn red and hop up and down in frustration. I'd rather have an ingrown toenail removed with an EDM machine than appear in court! My sympathy to you.

But that device from Sears does look a little hinkey. You say it retards bacterial growth in your gasoline? Yeah, and it keeps elephants away, too.

I would like to thank those that have responded thus far. All have provided something to think about. I was going to post a question on absolutes separately, however I wasn't quite sure how would go over on an engineering forum.

I ran across the advertisement for the bolt on catalyst quite by accident, it seemed quite appropriate to utilize it in this discussion. The statement of increasing fuel economy in one instance if nothing else would be difficult to disprove.TPV45 statement of repelling elephants is probably closer to the truth than a 34% increase in fuel economy (they might not like the smell of the catalyst) as SPARCstation implied, in this instance their claims are probably legal, yet it is still a way to steal money legally.

Dell's comment on qualifying , and limiting the scope of a statement seems to be shared by all including myself.

I found emc c comments extremely appropriate. For instance I know my desk is mostly empty space, anything but solid, but for my purposes it is solid. Bringing us to the example of the 45 and the heart shot. Functionally I would define it as an absolute, as long as I qualified it with no misfires sufficient energy to penetrate an exit, etc. , philosophically and hypothetically sometime between now and the end of the universe if the experiment was repeated enough times there is at least a chance of a bullet passing harmlessly through or least according to quantum mechanics.

I guess I am absolutely certain of something, lawyers would make ideal test subjects, at least according to Shakespeare, and if you define a miracle as a one time occurrence, Benjamin Franklin statement "behold a miracle a lawyer and an honest man" would certainly preclude any honest men being injured while conducting experiments.

PS: thanks for the sentiment TPY45, although pure speculation at this point, I believe this deposition function is anything but to get at the truth. Although I'm not being called as an expert witness, I do intend to inject some physics philosophys into my answers, such as qualifying everything, hopefully at least I can leave them with a headache.

Hello Milo:

I'm watching the post as I do paperwork for tomorrow, and so far everything has been on-topic, both of your post were hopeful thank you, and illustrative of my conundrum.

Your Highway Patrol example is precisely what confounds me, whether or not it's highway patrolman or liars lawyers, all are trained to hide inconvenient truths. I'm afraid I'm ill-prepared, I got a D in my high school debating class, I couldn't take the con side against nuclear power.

The emerging consensus is say as little as possible, and don't worry about telling the whole truth, a difficult concept especially when your occupation encompasses discovering what actually caused a failure for instance, instead of what can I blame this on.

My fallback position is going to be, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with_______

Testifying once against two dirtbags that stole items from my car the prosecuting attorney asked me "Did you give these individuals permission to take those items from your car?"

The quickly informed me that the correct form of the answer should not start out "You're kidding me, right?" "Just answer the question sir!"

These days financial survival is a must for even large companies therefore, they too can go resort to anything - independent laboratory...tell them to prove their claim under your watchful eyes.

Better if you take somebody along with you, just to make sure do not miss a thing at the Demo, especially when it comes to 34%...that is admirable.

Anybody read this in Scientific American?

http://scientificamericandigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=94353518-3048-8A5E-102E7607FC0F1CBD

"Electric fields can boost a car's gas mileage by up to 20 percent, thanks to a well-known effect in which electric fields reduce the viscosity of a liquid [see "Electrorheological Fluids"; Scientific American, October 1993]. Reduced fuel viscosity means that much smaller droplets can be injected into the engine, leading to more efficient combustion. Investigators at Temple University thinned fuel by attaching an electrically charged tube to a diesel engine's fuel line near the fuel injector. In road tests, the attachment, which consumed less than 0.1 watt, increased highway fuel economy from 32 to 38 miles per gallon. The researchers, who describe the boost in the November 19 Energy & Fuels, expect the device will find use in all kinds of internal-combustion engines"

C'mon mate! That's like 15years ago and they're only taking it more seriously now? Sorry, I don't buy it. Even if they're rite what took them so long?

This should have made Mr Bush feel lot more comfy in the hot-seat at the Kyoto treaty a few years ago. (I think the printable solar-cell will come about a lot sooner than this...call it whatever.)

The "secret" to judging scientific articles is always the source of funding and the citations.

Find a full article link on this paper and look at the funding. Then check out that source. Look for financial links between Temple and the source. Check to see if that source has had any problems (for example, an enjoinder from the SEC).

Then look at the other papers cited. Do they look impressive? Are there big-time agencies and universities in there? Finally, has this paper been cited by legitimate researchers?

The paper looks pretty impressive, but there's an important technical question. They claim to dramatically improve viscosity with this device and that improves combustion. Two points: Are we to believe that without doing this, around 20% of diesel leaves the exhaust unburned? Why didn't anybody ever think of this before..wait what's that? Oh, they did. You say people preheat diesel? Well that should improve viscosity. Oh? Yes, that's why they preheat it. No, that doesn't seem to affect mileage.

Mmm? I think I'll wait to buy stock.

I would recommend that you buy one of the magnet devices that you clamp to the fuel line, they only cost around $20. That way you get screwed for only $20.

Customer Beware of scams there is not law against them.

BAd advice!

I prefer

1) to do the screwing;

and

2) to be paid for doing the screwing

milo

Consider a career in swimming pool maintenance.....

Ed Weldon

It will stand the possibility of working as long as the fuel line is replaced with a non-braided section where the magnet is placed. If it is installed on the braided section, the steel reinforcement (that helps prevent rupture under high pressure) will cancel the magnetic field, thereby exhibiting a "non-result". Unfortunately by changing to a non-braided fuel line, engine warranty is void. There are Systems that will magnetically clean oils and diesel fuels extremely well, with no affect on manufacturers warranty. The Halex Coil has had over 12 years of successful in-field results on large equipment (mobile and stationary and tons of lab results). You may wish to read further on the website.

ANYTHING that will send attorneys int o psychoanalysis IS not to be altered molested or disturbed in ANY way!!!!

'da ber

In response to your first question. Most consumers would look at the 34% increase to be a bit too unbelievably much (and personally, I'm not convinced at all, not with 1 lab result, on 1 piece of equipment. That, is no proof of a theory.). Improvements that are shown to the Big 3 are usually rejected, as they want no competition to their "supply-side mentality". They live with built-in, pre-planned obsolescence and we, as users of their product lines, succumb. We accept their mediocrity and think because they are employers (direct & indirect) of a majority of North Americans, we should support them. This is wrong.

Normally if an improvement is brought to any of the auto/truck builders, their first reaction is how will they be affected (read: $$$), not how can we improve our product. For them to incorporate a device that would benefit the consumer with a 34% fuel benefit, their supply side would be affected, and that is not what they want. Years ago, when I was involved in flea markets, for 10 years (back in the 80's) I was set up to a vendor we called 'Sparky', an old retiree that traveled up and down the East Coast between Ontario and Florida. His device looked impressive on his old Cadillac with the removable hood. He seemed always to convince enough of the public to part with $50 for a decent enough supplement to his small pension check. With a promise of improved fuel mileage (10-15%), none, but only a few ever complained, as some did see some results. Not many, mind you. A small percentage improvement is almost always impossible to prove out to the average Consumer traveling to WalMart from home. To change their driving habits is next to impossible and no one wants to admit to being fleeced by a gimmick.

The auto/truck sector manufacturers, oil companies, filter companies, and the like, are all in bed together and do their utmost to slow down the improvements consumers ultimately see. The ability to drive the average car with oil changes in the 40-50,000 mile range is available to Joe Public now. Improvements can be had in small incremental steps. Does Detroit want to share that knowledge with you. No! Never! It slows their profits dramatically.

With the possibility of Chapter 11 hanging over all their heads, a fresh approach has to take hold of the executive talent (out with the dinosaurs), rank and file members and our politicos', because the way it is being run now, is definately not sustainable in the long run. Resources, which to a large extent are non-renewable, are diminishing at an alarming rate and our long-term, collective well-being, is in jeopardy.

Sorry for the rant, (and I could go on further) but .....I needed to get that off my chest. Thanks!

Always a pleasure toread your posts Ken.

Milo

Many thanks Milo. Likewise.

Yup, I agreed with Milo, Ken

Milo, there is also no reference to the way that the vehicle was driven. I can effect a 34% improvement in mileage just by driving everywhere at 30 mph. It'd take forever, but it would improve my mileage.

Here is their web site http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/

Defiantly a case of extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof.

Seem to have many followers http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/products/reviews.cfm

Brad

I went to the ASPI website and read the first test report on the Fitch product installed in a Chevy Impala with a 350 V8. The report refers to "preconditioning" before each of 3 tests, resulting in 13.121 mpg, 13.967 mpg and 17.650 mpg respectively. No information on the details of the preconditioning was given.

IMHO this lack of disclosure on the nature of the preconditioning is sufficient to render the stated results and conclusions to be totally lacking in credibility. I saw no reason to read any other test information published on their site.

Ed Weldon

I think this 'More miles per gallon' scenario come about as the CEOs' problem.

I love the comment about batteries (actually, not ). Does Ford think batteries are free? How much oil does it take to charge a battery? I believe that the failure of even one of the Big 3 will be a disaster for the American mid-west, but what the heck does it take for the auto CEOs to actually understand anything? They're a lot like the old mule we used to have - he was a hard worker and would do what you asked; however, you had to hit him across the butt with an axe handle to get his attention.

If you still have that axe handle you might as well get it out and be prepared put it to a good use again. May be those congressmen could use it in the not too distant future on those CEOs when they come to their decissions.

I do not know if I'll be able to follow this event up but I am really curious what is gonna happen to these giants?

TVP45, I'm not willing to lay all of the blame on the big 3 (a large portion maybe). I would lay a whole bunch of the blame on the UAW. They have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. GM China is wildly profitable and those profits are in part offsetting the losses in the US. Toyota USA is wildly profitable as well. In fact the Toyota Tundra assembly plant in San Antonio was idled for 3 months due to lack of demand for the pickup. Instead of laying off the workers, Toyota kept the workers on full pay and had them working doing community service work. Even doing that, they turned a profit.

So what is the difference? Unions. Union pensions, union insurance, union work rules, union work bank programs.

Collective bargaining has destroyed the industry.

So I say to all of you. If you are laid off, if your 401K is toast, thank a union member by punching them in the nose.

They finally found Jimmy Hoffa, btw. He was hiding behind Tammy Faye's makeup.

HelloTPV45:

I Found That the Statements from Ford's CEO Did Anything but Inspire Confidence in Me. A Friend of Mine Who Is a Corporate Pilot, Told Me He Had Heard Ford's CEO Was Driving to Washington. I'm I am frequently privy to the ridiculous uses of corporate aircraft, however both of us agreed that the CEO of Ford Motor Companys time could have been better spent working to save his company, instead of showboating driving to Washington.

Generally when you perform your job so poorly as to jeopardize the financial stability of your employer you get fired, one of the first uses of the bailout for Wall Street was corporate executives drawing bonuses. However the offer to work for a dollar a year is another ridiculous gesture, a reasonable reduced salary, with no bonuses would have been perfectly acceptable.

The big threes nitch is large SUVs, and trucks these vehicles are currently not selling because of fuel prices, they're not selling because of economic concerns.

Hybrids , fuel cells and batteries are all expensive, the last thing any body is going to buy is an expensive limited use vehicle. However it does play well on the popular press hyping hydrogen and electric vehicles.

More than a sarcastic comment to say that if Congress buys into hydrogen and batteries being a solution, they would be a target demographic for the sale of the in-line fuel catalyst.

Being a technophile I welcome the development of these vehicles, until the inner structure exists to distribute hydrogen, the electrical capacity exist to make the hydrogen and charge batteries from sources other fossil fuels particularly oil (FYI 60 new US nuclear plants in the planning stage) this is certainly no answer.

Is readily in evidence that reduced oil demand resulted in dramatically reduced gasoline prices. Producing hydrogen from electrolysis will probably result in an increase in oil dependency considering all the inefficiencies involved.

As long as were talking billions all the traffic lights in the United States could probably be synchronized for one billion, wouldn't be perfect but it can be started tomorrow. There's no doubt in my not my Detroit needs to be saved, just get rid of the smoke and mirrors and doit.

On the other hand considering all the hot air and BS going on in Congress, we may have uncovered a new energy source.

Since you're pretty much up to date on this issue all I can say these companies don't deserve help until they remove their CEOs?

It is not only a public relation disaster, as they put it, but it also shows that they are unwilling to compromise in tough times and perhaps willing to put with one another and travel together to Washington.

To show off their hybrid vehicles to the senate in this dying moment is very unimportant since even Toyota and Honda, the two greatest pioneers of the concept, are feeling the pinching effect of the market also. Yet, it seems they can still afford to treat their employees better.

The senate should let the 3 big ones die and when the market picks up let the better ones further expand and hire the workforce of the 3 big ones.

This is a joke what these cowboys (CEOs) in times like these suddenly willing to crawl even all the way to the capitol to get help which they later would likely to blow anyway.

If the senate has the feel for their icons then they should boot out the current CEOs and get new ones in before any kind of help can be given on strict conditions!

Welcome to CR4.

The Caps Lock Key is the 3rd big wide key from the bottom on the left of your keyboard. It says "Caps Lock" on it.

Push it once and it will change the way your type looks! FROM THIS TO this!

Push it two times and nothing happens! Just like the magic magnetic viscosity thing- a-ma-bob that started this thread.

SINS U COMPLEETD HUKED ON FONIX, U SHUD TRY THZ:

http://web.uvic.ca/calendar2008/CDs/ENGL/099.html

ALL ARE BEZ TO U.

SINED

ITCHIMANS LUCKING FOR PROBLEM

"HEY I DONT THINK WE NEED ITCHI MEN LIKE YOU JUST LUCKING FOR PROBLEM IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT BUY IT I SEE LOT PSICLO IN OTHER TREAD FORUN LIKE YOU"

What the hell are you talking about, (and to who?), and why are you yelling at us?

http://www.pmcycles.com/HP%20TV.htm

The Fitch Fuel Catalyst works, but not like some people think it should work. Its not going to get you hundreds of more mileage.

On avg. maybe 1-2 mile more. Fitch even comes out and says this, so it's no a surprise when you find out ur not making a whole lot of mileage.

FFC does so much more for your engine, i suggest going to their web site.

I've used their product for 5 years plus, pretty much since it hit the market.

FFC is a one time deal with a 250,000 mile warranty. You install it once and never again. You don't have to keep reapplying it like a fuel cleaner.

FFC will keep your fuel system clean, lubricates your rings.

It refines the fuel by molecular break down, which makes it easier to com-bust.

It make your acceleration much quicker, but if you drive with the fuel peddle plastered to the sheet metal, fuel mileage is irrelevant to this equation.

Me, I've got twitchy legs and i can't sit still so, my gas peddle is glued to the carpet.

I bought the FFC for the performance side, not the fuel savings.

I believe that fuel savings are completly in your head! Why think how many things effect your fuel milage. Too many things to keep up with, things you can't even change IE weather,terrain, altitude. You're better off in a starait jacket.

It hurts to much to think about fuel mileage.

Take it easy out there, it's not worth stressing over.

I suspect that "Guest" works for Fitch.

This is total and unadulterated snake oil. The people selling this should be in prison.