real gas saver finally found?
- Thread starter David Griffith 2
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Interesting device, but I'll have to wait until there is more unbiased testing before I jump on the bandwagon..:grin: Most people are not equiped to properly test these devices and they only know if they spent a lot of money, they have to justify that it works and that they are not fools...:grin:
I can't wait for the 3:00am Infomercials...:bwahaha:
I hope it does what he claims it will do, but only time will tell.
....Rich
I can't wait for the 3:00am Infomercials...:bwahaha:
I hope it does what he claims it will do, but only time will tell.
....Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
More snake oil and wishful thinking I suspect.
TJR
TJR
Norm Reeves
Active Member
I think this one has real pottenta....potentale.....potentaiel....well, whatever.....:rofl:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
That's what we call a boondoggle. I guess it is a more honest way to get public money than how it is traditionally done, but it is a boondoggle none the less.
A year or 2 ago some employees of the MD SHA had put some of those hydrogen-producing gimmicks on their trucks and were showing solid MPG improvements, so they claimed. They did this with their own money, but it came to light when these employees published their claims to try and persuade the MD government to pay for these widgets to be put on all SHA vehicles. Thankfully that was shot down.
I'm scared that a Georgian government could fall for such a boondoggle when Maryland, a state infamous for its pending offshore wind power plant boondoggle, was smart enough to stay away from a similar one. :cry::cry:
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
This inventor is a Chiropractor....not sure if he is a quack or a good one, but this should give him a little credibility on a personal level.
Who knows, maybe it works, anyone hear from Dingo and his device he was testing?
Who knows, maybe it works, anyone hear from Dingo and his device he was testing?
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
I think I saw one of those at Lowes. In the ice maker filter section...different label on it..
I found that there is already a patented device that appears to be identical to the Viper fuel vapor enhanser???
This one is called the Eco System Fuel vapor enhanser. They claim to have an average of 10% improvement in fuel economy and offer a 5 year warranty, as well as a 90 day money back guarantee. The Viper Cell claims up to 15% improvements in gas mileage but only offers a 1 year warranty and I don't see any 90 day money back guarantee??
So it would appear that Viper Cell will not be able to get a patent on their device, and they may be in violation of Eco Systems' existing patent... unless they are the same company or just different distributors of the same products?
Either way, it's starting to sound a bit fishy to me.
http://www.etieco.com/index.htm
...Rich
This one is called the Eco System Fuel vapor enhanser. They claim to have an average of 10% improvement in fuel economy and offer a 5 year warranty, as well as a 90 day money back guarantee. The Viper Cell claims up to 15% improvements in gas mileage but only offers a 1 year warranty and I don't see any 90 day money back guarantee??
So it would appear that Viper Cell will not be able to get a patent on their device, and they may be in violation of Eco Systems' existing patent... unless they are the same company or just different distributors of the same products?
Either way, it's starting to sound a bit fishy to me.
http://www.etieco.com/index.htm
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
I question the fact that it turns the fuel into vapor. When you force liquids that can vaporize, under high pressure thru an orfice (fuel injector in this case). It turns into vapor anyway.
Especialy the newer cars that have direct injection into a hot cylinder. It vaporizes imediatly. That is one of the benifits of direct injection vs port injection.
Maybe Im wrong. IMO, snake oil......
Especialy the newer cars that have direct injection into a hot cylinder. It vaporizes imediatly. That is one of the benifits of direct injection vs port injection.
Maybe Im wrong. IMO, snake oil......
Eddie,
I am giving them the benefit of the doubt....for now. Their devices may do nothing more than spray the fuel through some nozzles or fine mesh screens to "Pre-vaporize" the fuel??? which may allow the injectors to further increase the vaporization of the fuel. I think it may work something like the aerator screen on the end of your kitchen sink faucet. It breaks up the water and allows for a smoother flow with less splashing.
I know that heat and higher vapor pressure increases the combustability of fuel, but I cannot say that this device actually increases the vapor pressure of fuel, or increases it enough to make a mileage difference?? I suspect that a series of mesh screens or nozzles can break up the fuel into smaller clumps?? and that might help in mitering the fuel more accurately and require a little less fuel???
All of his is just speculation since the device does not have any external wiring or mechanical connections, and does not appear to contain any kind of mystery catalyst to change the molecular structure of the fuel....That's why I assume it contains some kind of nozzle or mesh screens.
...Rich
I am giving them the benefit of the doubt....for now. Their devices may do nothing more than spray the fuel through some nozzles or fine mesh screens to "Pre-vaporize" the fuel??? which may allow the injectors to further increase the vaporization of the fuel. I think it may work something like the aerator screen on the end of your kitchen sink faucet. It breaks up the water and allows for a smoother flow with less splashing.
I know that heat and higher vapor pressure increases the combustability of fuel, but I cannot say that this device actually increases the vapor pressure of fuel, or increases it enough to make a mileage difference?? I suspect that a series of mesh screens or nozzles can break up the fuel into smaller clumps?? and that might help in mitering the fuel more accurately and require a little less fuel???
All of his is just speculation since the device does not have any external wiring or mechanical connections, and does not appear to contain any kind of mystery catalyst to change the molecular structure of the fuel....That's why I assume it contains some kind of nozzle or mesh screens.
...Rich
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
Rich,
Your theory makes the only thing I can think of also......
Your theory makes the only thing I can think of also......
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
It's snake oil. Does nothing. Any perceived MPG gain is wishful thinking. These are all my guesses, but let's just say, I am dubious.
Pre vaporization is a good guess, but i would sooner think something like that would make today's electronic fuel injected engines run like crap...not run better.
To think that some chiropractor could do a better job than Detroit and Tokyo engineers is pretty friggin' naive, again, IMHO,
TJR
Pre vaporization is a good guess, but i would sooner think something like that would make today's electronic fuel injected engines run like crap...not run better.
To think that some chiropractor could do a better job than Detroit and Tokyo engineers is pretty friggin' naive, again, IMHO,
TJR
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
+ 1 What TJR said.
Any "pre-vaporization" would interfere with proper metering of the fuel by the fuel injector and cause drivability issues.
Snake oil. That't all.
Any "pre-vaporization" would interfere with proper metering of the fuel by the fuel injector and cause drivability issues.
Snake oil. That't all.
TJR,
I don't think that the fact the guy was a Chiropractor has anything to do with his ability to invent something that is not necessarily related to his career field. Chiropractors must go through medical school before they branch off to the chiropractor specialty, so they are educated, in fields like chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy etc. and are assumed to be reasonably intelligent people.
There are many people who have become experts in areas that are completely unrelated to their primary occupation. Jay Leno is a late night comedian but is considered an expert in antique motorcycles and automobiles, especially old steam powered vehicles that died out over 100 years ago.
When people find something interesting or facinating, or simply feel there must be a better way...they do some digging and start to formulate ideas. Often times they are just tinkering in their basements or garages when an idea hits them.
My point is that this device may not do a thing to improve gas mileage, however most devices like this are based on some reasonable scientific principles. Of course it is always in the inventor's best interest to show that the device works and their testing results are often tainted or biased. That's why I want to see these things tested by a reputable laboratory like the EPA. The EPA will do testing on any kind of fuel saving device, but it costs a lot of money, but it is totally unbiased. In some cases the EPA has found that some of these snake oil devices do have some fuel saving benefits, but under very limited circumstances, and/or the fuel savings were within their error parameters and may not be attributed to the device.
Many years ago there was a device that was similar to a spacer that fit under a carburator. This spacer had several layers of fine mesh screen that the air/fuel mixture would pass through before entering the intake manifold. These mesh screens were claimed to breakup the fuel into smaller dropletts and created a more even distribution of air/fuel to all cylinders. That is in effect a way to increase the vapor pressure of the fuel.
Raising the vapor pressure is just the conversion of a flamable liquid into a more gas like state. So there is scientific validation that raising the vapor pressure of fuel by increasing the temperature of the fuel, or breaking up the fuel into finer dropletts or a finer mist creates a more combustable fuel resulting in a more complete combustion.
Again, I am not saying this device works or does anything to improve fuel economy, only that there is some level of scientific theory to what is claimed, but no proof that it actually does what it claimed.
...Rich
I don't think that the fact the guy was a Chiropractor has anything to do with his ability to invent something that is not necessarily related to his career field. Chiropractors must go through medical school before they branch off to the chiropractor specialty, so they are educated, in fields like chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy etc. and are assumed to be reasonably intelligent people.
There are many people who have become experts in areas that are completely unrelated to their primary occupation. Jay Leno is a late night comedian but is considered an expert in antique motorcycles and automobiles, especially old steam powered vehicles that died out over 100 years ago.
When people find something interesting or facinating, or simply feel there must be a better way...they do some digging and start to formulate ideas. Often times they are just tinkering in their basements or garages when an idea hits them.
My point is that this device may not do a thing to improve gas mileage, however most devices like this are based on some reasonable scientific principles. Of course it is always in the inventor's best interest to show that the device works and their testing results are often tainted or biased. That's why I want to see these things tested by a reputable laboratory like the EPA. The EPA will do testing on any kind of fuel saving device, but it costs a lot of money, but it is totally unbiased. In some cases the EPA has found that some of these snake oil devices do have some fuel saving benefits, but under very limited circumstances, and/or the fuel savings were within their error parameters and may not be attributed to the device.
Many years ago there was a device that was similar to a spacer that fit under a carburator. This spacer had several layers of fine mesh screen that the air/fuel mixture would pass through before entering the intake manifold. These mesh screens were claimed to breakup the fuel into smaller dropletts and created a more even distribution of air/fuel to all cylinders. That is in effect a way to increase the vapor pressure of the fuel.
Raising the vapor pressure is just the conversion of a flamable liquid into a more gas like state. So there is scientific validation that raising the vapor pressure of fuel by increasing the temperature of the fuel, or breaking up the fuel into finer dropletts or a finer mist creates a more combustable fuel resulting in a more complete combustion.
Again, I am not saying this device works or does anything to improve fuel economy, only that there is some level of scientific theory to what is claimed, but no proof that it actually does what it claimed.
...Rich
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
Im sure since he has been getting customers. It wont be long that popular mechanics will test it.
They have disprooven everything so far. My thoughts are if there was a majic wand. Auto manufactors will jump on it. So they can sell more larger vehicles. To those considering downsizing for fuel cost.
I refuse to beleive, there is a connection between. The oil industry and auto to use more fuel. Some of these devices, despite scientific posibility. I bet the auto industry has already tested and found useless
Exception for some. I think most Americans want larger for comfort and roomyness. I have had 2 compacts in my life. Never again..LOL
They have disprooven everything so far. My thoughts are if there was a majic wand. Auto manufactors will jump on it. So they can sell more larger vehicles. To those considering downsizing for fuel cost.
I refuse to beleive, there is a connection between. The oil industry and auto to use more fuel. Some of these devices, despite scientific posibility. I bet the auto industry has already tested and found useless
Exception for some. I think most Americans want larger for comfort and roomyness. I have had 2 compacts in my life. Never again..LOL
Eddie,
I agree with you on that point, however that's not the way the automakers work. When someone invents something, they rarely beat a path to his door with bundles of cash. They often take that idea and concept, and make a similar device that does the same thing without infringing on the original patent. In some cases, they cannot duplicate the function without infringing on the original patent, so they don't use it.
If they can prove the device will work, they may offer money to the inventor for the patent rights...based on how much money they think they can make by making it available as standard equipment or an extra cost option.
When the inventor markets the device themselves, they probably can make more money than the Automakers will offer, and the automakers know that their competitors can't make the device and add it to their vehicles, so there is no existing competition. In many cases, the automakers just wait till the patent expires and the device becomes public domain.
I also do not believe in all those conspiracy theories that the Oil companies and automakers are in cahoots to keep these things off the market. In most cases, the devices don't work or don't work as well as claimed..and only under limited conditions. And finally, the inventor typically want's way to much money for the patent rights, or refuses to sell to the automakers because he thinks they will hide the existence of his invention.
...Rich
....Rich
I agree with you on that point, however that's not the way the automakers work. When someone invents something, they rarely beat a path to his door with bundles of cash. They often take that idea and concept, and make a similar device that does the same thing without infringing on the original patent. In some cases, they cannot duplicate the function without infringing on the original patent, so they don't use it.
If they can prove the device will work, they may offer money to the inventor for the patent rights...based on how much money they think they can make by making it available as standard equipment or an extra cost option.
When the inventor markets the device themselves, they probably can make more money than the Automakers will offer, and the automakers know that their competitors can't make the device and add it to their vehicles, so there is no existing competition. In many cases, the automakers just wait till the patent expires and the device becomes public domain.
I also do not believe in all those conspiracy theories that the Oil companies and automakers are in cahoots to keep these things off the market. In most cases, the devices don't work or don't work as well as claimed..and only under limited conditions. And finally, the inventor typically want's way to much money for the patent rights, or refuses to sell to the automakers because he thinks they will hide the existence of his invention.
...Rich
....Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
RichardL,
I'm not saying that someone's ex profession is an indicator that they can or can't invent something, I'm just saying it makes me skeptical.
As for pre-vaporization, I just see that as doing harm if placed in the fuel line prior to an injector that then does vaporization again. It would be like cutting my garden hoses to my sprinklers somewhere in the middle, and in the middle of the new disconnected pieces putting in a sprinkler on one end and a cistern on the other and some bigger tube/vessel to hold the whole thing. Seems like it would muck up and reduce the efficiency of the water delivery system to me, not improve it.
The point of my opinion was that if some additional stage could be added to a fuel line that does something really beneficial I am skeptical that this guy would invent it. It would more than likely already be invented and introduced. Anything added after the fact would be tampering, and probably more likely hurt, not help.
Lastly, I too don't believe in conspiracies by the auto mfgrs. If they could make vehicles more fuel efficient in a cost efficient manner, they would.
TJR
I'm not saying that someone's ex profession is an indicator that they can or can't invent something, I'm just saying it makes me skeptical.
As for pre-vaporization, I just see that as doing harm if placed in the fuel line prior to an injector that then does vaporization again. It would be like cutting my garden hoses to my sprinklers somewhere in the middle, and in the middle of the new disconnected pieces putting in a sprinkler on one end and a cistern on the other and some bigger tube/vessel to hold the whole thing. Seems like it would muck up and reduce the efficiency of the water delivery system to me, not improve it.
The point of my opinion was that if some additional stage could be added to a fuel line that does something really beneficial I am skeptical that this guy would invent it. It would more than likely already be invented and introduced. Anything added after the fact would be tampering, and probably more likely hurt, not help.
Lastly, I too don't believe in conspiracies by the auto mfgrs. If they could make vehicles more fuel efficient in a cost efficient manner, they would.
TJR
TJR
I am skeptical too, I just don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water. This guy just may have done some thinking outside the box and just may have stumbled onto something?
I also do not believe in the oil companies or automakers in a conspiracy to keep gas saving devices off the market. I agree that the automakeres WANT to make their vehicles more fuel efficient...I just think they take a very different view based on their engineering and research.
Like you, automakers are very skeptical of these so called mirical devices that save fuel. They may even have someone buy a few so they can test them, and find that they do not work, or not as well as claimed and not worth pursuing.
That's pretty much why you never hear of the automakers knocking on some inventors door to buy the rights to their invention. Automakeres are not much different than other industries who's engineers invent and patent hundreds or even thousands of items every year...they prefer to keep all inventions "In-House". If they did not invent it, they may try to make a similar device that does the same thing but that does not infringe on the original patent.
Ford engineers at the Louisville, KY assembly plant looked at my original LeverLift installed on my truck back at the first National Sport Trac meet about ten years ago. Nobody from Ford ever contacted me about buying the rights to my invention, and I never expected them to.
I did expect them to develop something similar, and probably even better...but they never did? The only thing they did was add a torsion spring to the Gen2 tonneau cover to help support some of the weight when opening the cover.
I guess because I have always had an inventor' mind set, I like to give any anybody's idea some level of respect and credibility until I can confirm it does not work. I have found that the best inventions are often the simplest, but I become skeptical when I see a lot of unexplained mysteries or over engineering.
I am also skeptical when someone who has a patent, or a patent pending does not want to show or explain how the device works. That usually means that scientific evidence may show that the device cannot work as claimed, and/or they are charging customers way too much money for a simple device that someone can make at home for a few dollars.
Most people are not equiped to accurately assess if a gas saving device really works or not. If they know they have installed the device, they tend to watch their gas mileage more carefully and probably even drive more economically....all in the effort to show that they are not fools, and did not purchase a pig in a poke. Any slight increase in gas mileage is often exaggerated, and attributed to the expensive device, when in reality, it was just a little lighter traffic, or just their subconscience effort to drive more economically, but most will never admit to that.
A more accurate way to test the device would be a completely blind test where the driver does not know when he is driving with or without the device. The test would be more accurate if you ran about 20 tests without the device and only two or three of the test sessions would be with the device installed....Those 2 or 3 tests with the device should all show a noticable improvement in mileage over the tests done without the device.
The only other way would be to have the device tested by the EPA or some other disinterested party who is capable of performing a true scientific comparison in a lab where there would be nothing else to influence the gas mileage accept the device. The EPA will do that but they charge a lot of money to do so. I am skeptical about private labs selected by the inventor since they are being paid by the inventor, and cannot necessarily be completely neutral, and may just confirm whatever the inventor claims or how the inventor wants it tested.
...Rich
I am skeptical too, I just don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water. This guy just may have done some thinking outside the box and just may have stumbled onto something?
I also do not believe in the oil companies or automakers in a conspiracy to keep gas saving devices off the market. I agree that the automakeres WANT to make their vehicles more fuel efficient...I just think they take a very different view based on their engineering and research.
Like you, automakers are very skeptical of these so called mirical devices that save fuel. They may even have someone buy a few so they can test them, and find that they do not work, or not as well as claimed and not worth pursuing.
That's pretty much why you never hear of the automakers knocking on some inventors door to buy the rights to their invention. Automakeres are not much different than other industries who's engineers invent and patent hundreds or even thousands of items every year...they prefer to keep all inventions "In-House". If they did not invent it, they may try to make a similar device that does the same thing but that does not infringe on the original patent.
Ford engineers at the Louisville, KY assembly plant looked at my original LeverLift installed on my truck back at the first National Sport Trac meet about ten years ago. Nobody from Ford ever contacted me about buying the rights to my invention, and I never expected them to.
I did expect them to develop something similar, and probably even better...but they never did? The only thing they did was add a torsion spring to the Gen2 tonneau cover to help support some of the weight when opening the cover.
I guess because I have always had an inventor' mind set, I like to give any anybody's idea some level of respect and credibility until I can confirm it does not work. I have found that the best inventions are often the simplest, but I become skeptical when I see a lot of unexplained mysteries or over engineering.
I am also skeptical when someone who has a patent, or a patent pending does not want to show or explain how the device works. That usually means that scientific evidence may show that the device cannot work as claimed, and/or they are charging customers way too much money for a simple device that someone can make at home for a few dollars.
Most people are not equiped to accurately assess if a gas saving device really works or not. If they know they have installed the device, they tend to watch their gas mileage more carefully and probably even drive more economically....all in the effort to show that they are not fools, and did not purchase a pig in a poke. Any slight increase in gas mileage is often exaggerated, and attributed to the expensive device, when in reality, it was just a little lighter traffic, or just their subconscience effort to drive more economically, but most will never admit to that.
A more accurate way to test the device would be a completely blind test where the driver does not know when he is driving with or without the device. The test would be more accurate if you ran about 20 tests without the device and only two or three of the test sessions would be with the device installed....Those 2 or 3 tests with the device should all show a noticable improvement in mileage over the tests done without the device.
The only other way would be to have the device tested by the EPA or some other disinterested party who is capable of performing a true scientific comparison in a lab where there would be nothing else to influence the gas mileage accept the device. The EPA will do that but they charge a lot of money to do so. I am skeptical about private labs selected by the inventor since they are being paid by the inventor, and cannot necessarily be completely neutral, and may just confirm whatever the inventor claims or how the inventor wants it tested.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Very true. A prime example of this is the invention of "intermittent" windshield wipers. The movie "Flash of Genius" is an outstanding depiction of how Ford Motor Company copied an engineer's design, and his family's subsequent legal battle with FoMoCo for credit for the device.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CSd1BS8E3RE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac,
I have not seen the movie "Flash of Genius", but I heard the story how Ford stole the guys idea for the intermittent wipers.
That's probably why the automakers do not deal with independent inventors....The guy turned down a $30 million offer from Ford, which I think was stupid and based only on the principle that Ford stole his idea. I don't know if he eventually won the case, or how much he got if he did win, but I'm sure it was not worth all the agravation....But then again, they probably would have never made a movie about it if he took the $30 million and lived happily ever after...:grin:
...Rich
I have not seen the movie "Flash of Genius", but I heard the story how Ford stole the guys idea for the intermittent wipers.
That's probably why the automakers do not deal with independent inventors....The guy turned down a $30 million offer from Ford, which I think was stupid and based only on the principle that Ford stole his idea. I don't know if he eventually won the case, or how much he got if he did win, but I'm sure it was not worth all the agravation....But then again, they probably would have never made a movie about it if he took the $30 million and lived happily ever after...:grin:
...Rich
