Gas Savers & Age Reversal
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:54 pm
DAR
A friend forwarded these claims for me to investigate. I thought I would post the results here. Feel free to investigate and add to this.
***
B.H.
A couple of possible frauds came up. Do you know about these?
1. On Air America, Ed Shultz has been pushing a "miraculous" gas
additive that supposedly increases mileage of any car or truck by 15%
or more.
2. Resveratrol ( or "reverse-it-all" ) ad going around. See below.
> Who Else Wants To Turn Back The
>
> ¡¡ ¡¡
>
> WHO ELSE WANTS TO TURN BACK THE EFFECTS OF AGING?
>
> /Resveratrol/ may also be able to reduce the uncomfortable side
> effects of chemotherapy -- rebuild damaged heart tissue, and lower
> cholesterol levels!
>
> Just on November 3, 2006, results of a study funded by the U.S.
> National Institutes of Health and Harvard University reveals that
> resveratrol increases the lifespan of mammals and also reduces the
> risks of a poor diet. You can read about this study at RESVERT.
>
> Immediately following this news another study was released on
> November 20, 2006, by the prestigious Louis Pasteur Institute in
> Paris showing that HUMANS who consumed large doses of resveratrol
> shed weight rapidly and had greater metabolic endurance!
>
> The proof of resveratrol's benefits is building. You cannot wait
> any longer to begin to enjoy its benefits. ¡¡
>
> Researchers wonder what it cannot do --
> SNIP... blah blah blah...
DAR
1) Ed Shultz pimping for this CA-40 stuff has only added to my reasons for finding him less than credible.
2) The claims for this "resveratrol" are outlandish and childish. I'll check into it soon.
Popular Mechanics magazine has an excellent and humorous expose' of seven popular "Fuel Savers." It's from 2005 so it doesn't include Ed Shultz's favorite, CA-40. The conclusion, excerpted below explains why it is unlikely CA-40 can perform as claimed.
A few excerpts from the PM article:
Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'
Can copper tubing, cheap magnets and wacky gimmicks really boost your mileage by as much as 300 percent? PM's Mike Allen puts [seven of] the latest MPG gadgets to the test. Please step back from the truck.
By Mike Allen
Published in the September 2005 issue.
As long as there have been cars, there have been gadgets that promise revolutionary improvements in performance and mileage. And every time there's a spike in fuel prices, these gadgets proliferate like mushrooms after a spring rain. Like now, with crude oil over $60 per barrel. Scan the Internet, store shelves and, yes, even the classified ads in the back of PM, and you will find dozens of devices promising to boost power, reduce emissions and, of course, improve mileage by 20, 40, even 300 percent!
Hey, we're not gullible. But we're not close-minded either. Could it be that the basement tinkerers behind most of these products have stumbled upon some heretofore undiscovered principle of physics or thermodynamics? Is it possible that the major auto companies have overlooked--or deliberately avoided--simple engine modifications that would give their cars and trucks an overwhelming advantage in the marketplace? Instead of dismissing such far-fetched notions out of hand, we decided to give the gas-gadget makers a chance to prove their miraculous claims.
We purchased seven typical gadgets--ranging in price from $20 to nearly $400--representing the most common approaches used by devices claiming to boost mileage, such as applying magnets to the fuel line, modifying air intakes or injecting extra fuel into the engine.
MIRACLE MAGNETS
There are dozens of fuel-line magnets on the market. We tested two. They all make similar claims: substantial improvements in fuel economy, reduced emissions and increased horsepower.
According to the people selling these devices, as gasoline flows past the magnet, the magnetic field will "break apart clusters of fuel molecules so gas burns more efficiently." Problem: Gasoline molecules aren't magnetic, not at all. But wait, there's more. If the fuel line is steel, as many are, the lines of magnetic flux will follow the fuel-line walls instead of passing through the fuel.
THE DYNO SAYS: As we suspected, neither device had any significant effect on performance or economy.
NEXT
VORTEX GENERATORS
These devices, which are usually installed on the upstream side of the mass airflow (MAF) sensor, use stationary vanes or, on some devices, spinning blades to make the inlet air between the air cleaner and intake manifold whirl around in a mini-tornado. This vortex supposedly mixes fuel more thoroughly with air, which means the fuel will, theoretically, burn more completely in the combustion chamber. Trouble is, there's a lot of intake tract downstream from these devices designed to maximize a smooth airflow. Turbulence, coupled with the restricted airflow caused by the device, can only reduce the amount of air sucked into the manifold. Less air means less power.
Again, we tested two devices. The TornadoFuelSaver is a nicely made stainless steel contraption, available in an assortment of sizes to fit most vehicles. We installed it on our truck's intake tract immediately upstream of the MAF sensor. We purchased the second device, the Intake Twister, on eBay. It was crudely handmade from sheet-aluminum flashing and pop rivets. It looked like something we could make in about 10 minutes from an old soda can. The staff at UTI was reluctant to install it: The bent sheetmetal vanes looked as if they might break off and be digested by the engine. The device is one-size-fits-all, and is simply bent into a curl to insert it into the intake duct.
THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.
ENGINE IONIZER
The Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver consists of a couple of pieces of wire molded to some rubber blocks, which the manufacturer refers to as "capacitor blocks." There are no capacitors in them, however, as we found out during the test. The rubber blocks clip onto the spark plug wires near the plugs, and are intended to carry the "corona charge" from one cylinder's plug wire to the electrodes of the other plugs. This charge is supposed to "cause a partial breakdown in the larger hydrocarbon molecules in all the non-firing cylinders, resulting in increased combustion efficiency." Yeah. Normally, we try to prevent cross-coupling between spark plug wires to prevent crossfiring between cylinders. The Engine Ionizer seems calculated to promote crossfire.
THE DYNO SAYS: The truck we tested showed about a 15-hp loss with the Ionizer. About 10 miles into our economy test, the left bank of rubber capacitor blocks started to melt and sag onto the red-hot exhaust manifold. When smoke started to fill the dyno room, we interrupted the test and redressed the wires and capacitor blocks more securely. But when one on the right bank liquefied and dripped onto the manifold, we had flames a good 2 ft. tall, requiring the use of a 20-pound fire extinguisher. This, of course, terminated the test. Besides, most of the capacitor blocks looked like yesterday's chewing gum. Consequently, we have no comment as to the abilities of the Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver to reduce fuel consumption.
Snip...
THE MORAL OF THE STORY
We've tested nowhere near all of the fuel-saver gadgets on the market, and I'm sure purveyors of others will be waiting in our lobby soon. But not one of the items we tested worked. At all. There's no ignoring the laws of physics, people. Your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. Less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. Even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete, the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism.
We say caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). But there are plenty of people out there who say: "There's one born every minute." Prediction: Within a few weeks after the appearance of this article, there will be gas-saving gadgets on the market that tout themselves as "Featured in Popular Mechanics." Someone will buy them. Probably not you.
Article here
Watch as a British channel carefully tests four mainstream gas power boosters in this 3 minute video clip.
More later...
D.
----------------------------
"A nurseryman used to guarantee all the trees he sold, as long as you followed his instructions. He gave customers a bottle of red fluid and another of blue, and told them to mix a tablespoon of the red into a gallon of water and a teaspoon of the blue into a quart, and pour both onto the transplanted tree every other day. He never needed to pay off a refund.
Finally a friend asked him what was in the red and blue fluids.
"Food coloring - it's the only way I can get people to water their transplants." --anon
A friend forwarded these claims for me to investigate. I thought I would post the results here. Feel free to investigate and add to this.
***
B.H.
A couple of possible frauds came up. Do you know about these?
1. On Air America, Ed Shultz has been pushing a "miraculous" gas
additive that supposedly increases mileage of any car or truck by 15%
or more.
2. Resveratrol ( or "reverse-it-all" ) ad going around. See below.
> Who Else Wants To Turn Back The
>
> ¡¡ ¡¡
>
> WHO ELSE WANTS TO TURN BACK THE EFFECTS OF AGING?
>
> /Resveratrol/ may also be able to reduce the uncomfortable side
> effects of chemotherapy -- rebuild damaged heart tissue, and lower
> cholesterol levels!
>
> Just on November 3, 2006, results of a study funded by the U.S.
> National Institutes of Health and Harvard University reveals that
> resveratrol increases the lifespan of mammals and also reduces the
> risks of a poor diet. You can read about this study at RESVERT.
>
> Immediately following this news another study was released on
> November 20, 2006, by the prestigious Louis Pasteur Institute in
> Paris showing that HUMANS who consumed large doses of resveratrol
> shed weight rapidly and had greater metabolic endurance!
>
> The proof of resveratrol's benefits is building. You cannot wait
> any longer to begin to enjoy its benefits. ¡¡
>
> Researchers wonder what it cannot do --
> SNIP... blah blah blah...
DAR
1) Ed Shultz pimping for this CA-40 stuff has only added to my reasons for finding him less than credible.
2) The claims for this "resveratrol" are outlandish and childish. I'll check into it soon.
Popular Mechanics magazine has an excellent and humorous expose' of seven popular "Fuel Savers." It's from 2005 so it doesn't include Ed Shultz's favorite, CA-40. The conclusion, excerpted below explains why it is unlikely CA-40 can perform as claimed.
A few excerpts from the PM article:
Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'
Can copper tubing, cheap magnets and wacky gimmicks really boost your mileage by as much as 300 percent? PM's Mike Allen puts [seven of] the latest MPG gadgets to the test. Please step back from the truck.
By Mike Allen
Published in the September 2005 issue.
As long as there have been cars, there have been gadgets that promise revolutionary improvements in performance and mileage. And every time there's a spike in fuel prices, these gadgets proliferate like mushrooms after a spring rain. Like now, with crude oil over $60 per barrel. Scan the Internet, store shelves and, yes, even the classified ads in the back of PM, and you will find dozens of devices promising to boost power, reduce emissions and, of course, improve mileage by 20, 40, even 300 percent!
Hey, we're not gullible. But we're not close-minded either. Could it be that the basement tinkerers behind most of these products have stumbled upon some heretofore undiscovered principle of physics or thermodynamics? Is it possible that the major auto companies have overlooked--or deliberately avoided--simple engine modifications that would give their cars and trucks an overwhelming advantage in the marketplace? Instead of dismissing such far-fetched notions out of hand, we decided to give the gas-gadget makers a chance to prove their miraculous claims.
We purchased seven typical gadgets--ranging in price from $20 to nearly $400--representing the most common approaches used by devices claiming to boost mileage, such as applying magnets to the fuel line, modifying air intakes or injecting extra fuel into the engine.
MIRACLE MAGNETS
There are dozens of fuel-line magnets on the market. We tested two. They all make similar claims: substantial improvements in fuel economy, reduced emissions and increased horsepower.
According to the people selling these devices, as gasoline flows past the magnet, the magnetic field will "break apart clusters of fuel molecules so gas burns more efficiently." Problem: Gasoline molecules aren't magnetic, not at all. But wait, there's more. If the fuel line is steel, as many are, the lines of magnetic flux will follow the fuel-line walls instead of passing through the fuel.
THE DYNO SAYS: As we suspected, neither device had any significant effect on performance or economy.
NEXT
VORTEX GENERATORS
These devices, which are usually installed on the upstream side of the mass airflow (MAF) sensor, use stationary vanes or, on some devices, spinning blades to make the inlet air between the air cleaner and intake manifold whirl around in a mini-tornado. This vortex supposedly mixes fuel more thoroughly with air, which means the fuel will, theoretically, burn more completely in the combustion chamber. Trouble is, there's a lot of intake tract downstream from these devices designed to maximize a smooth airflow. Turbulence, coupled with the restricted airflow caused by the device, can only reduce the amount of air sucked into the manifold. Less air means less power.
Again, we tested two devices. The TornadoFuelSaver is a nicely made stainless steel contraption, available in an assortment of sizes to fit most vehicles. We installed it on our truck's intake tract immediately upstream of the MAF sensor. We purchased the second device, the Intake Twister, on eBay. It was crudely handmade from sheet-aluminum flashing and pop rivets. It looked like something we could make in about 10 minutes from an old soda can. The staff at UTI was reluctant to install it: The bent sheetmetal vanes looked as if they might break off and be digested by the engine. The device is one-size-fits-all, and is simply bent into a curl to insert it into the intake duct.
THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.
ENGINE IONIZER
The Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver consists of a couple of pieces of wire molded to some rubber blocks, which the manufacturer refers to as "capacitor blocks." There are no capacitors in them, however, as we found out during the test. The rubber blocks clip onto the spark plug wires near the plugs, and are intended to carry the "corona charge" from one cylinder's plug wire to the electrodes of the other plugs. This charge is supposed to "cause a partial breakdown in the larger hydrocarbon molecules in all the non-firing cylinders, resulting in increased combustion efficiency." Yeah. Normally, we try to prevent cross-coupling between spark plug wires to prevent crossfiring between cylinders. The Engine Ionizer seems calculated to promote crossfire.
THE DYNO SAYS: The truck we tested showed about a 15-hp loss with the Ionizer. About 10 miles into our economy test, the left bank of rubber capacitor blocks started to melt and sag onto the red-hot exhaust manifold. When smoke started to fill the dyno room, we interrupted the test and redressed the wires and capacitor blocks more securely. But when one on the right bank liquefied and dripped onto the manifold, we had flames a good 2 ft. tall, requiring the use of a 20-pound fire extinguisher. This, of course, terminated the test. Besides, most of the capacitor blocks looked like yesterday's chewing gum. Consequently, we have no comment as to the abilities of the Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver to reduce fuel consumption.
Snip...
THE MORAL OF THE STORY
We've tested nowhere near all of the fuel-saver gadgets on the market, and I'm sure purveyors of others will be waiting in our lobby soon. But not one of the items we tested worked. At all. There's no ignoring the laws of physics, people. Your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. Less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. Even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete, the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism.
We say caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). But there are plenty of people out there who say: "There's one born every minute." Prediction: Within a few weeks after the appearance of this article, there will be gas-saving gadgets on the market that tout themselves as "Featured in Popular Mechanics." Someone will buy them. Probably not you.
Article here
Watch as a British channel carefully tests four mainstream gas power boosters in this 3 minute video clip.
More later...
D.
----------------------------
"A nurseryman used to guarantee all the trees he sold, as long as you followed his instructions. He gave customers a bottle of red fluid and another of blue, and told them to mix a tablespoon of the red into a gallon of water and a teaspoon of the blue into a quart, and pour both onto the transplanted tree every other day. He never needed to pay off a refund.
Finally a friend asked him what was in the red and blue fluids.
"Food coloring - it's the only way I can get people to water their transplants." --anon