The Khaos Super Turbo Charger - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-21-2005, 01:40 PM   #1
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
The Khaos Super Turbo Charger

<p><strong>Author:</strong>Timion, Matt</p><p><strong>Publication:</strong>www.gassavers.org</p><p><strong>Date:</strong>09/09/2005</p><p align="left">During the past few years, the Khaos Super Turbo Charger (KSTC) has made news in the Philippines, Taiwan, and even Australia. The KSTC reports to increase fuel economy by properly leaning out air to fuel ratio to the efficient 14.7:1 ratio. Much discussion has been made of this device throughout the internet and through the Philippines where the device was invented. Due to high volume of information about this device, the following articles are presented to you. The first article is written by Ben Cal of the Manila Bulletin. It serves as a basic background of the KSTC, as well as Frequently Asked Questions about it's design.
</p>
<p align="center"><img src="/files/gassavers/khaos1a.jpg"><img src="/files/gassavers/khaos1b.jpg"><img src="/files/gassavers/khaos1c.jpg"></p>
<p>After the Manila Bulleton article are three case studies by three different people. If you desire english translations of the occassional Filipino phrases, please ask Matt Timion in the forums for translations. </p>

<table width="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td><em>taken from <a href="http://www.bestofpinoys.manila.ph/khaos-turbo-charger/">http://www.bestofpinoys.manila.ph/khaos-turbo-charger/</a></em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p align="center"><strong> Pinoy invention to be tested in the US </strong><br>
Ben Cal <a href="http://www.mb.com.ph/"><em>Manila Bulletin </em></a></p>
<p align="left">(PNA) - A former logistics engineer of Lockheed Corp., one of the biggest US Defense Manufacturers, yesterday agreed to lobby in the United States a Filipino invention that will reduce car pollution to almost 100 percent. </p>
<p align="left">Planas and Pedery had their initial meeting yesterday afternoon at the former's office in Quezon City to discuss the possibility of marketing the gadget in the US. </p>
<p align="left">The Filipino inventor explained to Pedery how the " Khaos Super Turbo Charger " works as an anti-pollution device that is installed in gasoline-driven cars. </p>
<p align="left">Planas said the Khaos gadget, aside from being an anti-pollution device, can also cut by 50 percent the gas consumption. </p>
<p align="left">Pedery was impressed on how the " Khaos Super Turbo Charger " works that he offered his help to Planas in penetrating the lucrative US market. </p>
<p align="left">He said he will lobby in Washington to have Planas' invention tested by the US Environmental Protection Agency. </p>
<p align="left"><em>April 04, 2004 </em></p>
<p align="left"><strong>Does Khaos Super Turbo Charger Damage Your Engine? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Air-fuel ratio requirements: stoichiometric ratio and air-fuel ratio vary as engine operating condition changes during idle, part throttle, full throttle acceleration and start. </p>
<p align="left">The ideal air-fuel ratio is the stoichiometric ratio (14.7 lb. air to 1 lb. gasoline). </p>
<p align="left">Khaos Super Turbo Charger will regulate the air entering the engine during idling close to the ideal fuel ratio (14.7lb) for efficient burning. </p>
<p align="left">Therefore, it has no adverse effect on internal engine components because the device only helps the engine achieve the ideal air-fuel ratio at idling condition. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>How Effective is Khaos Super Turbo Charger on Engine With Highly Sophisticated Fuel and Emissions Management System? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Khaos Super Turbo Charger helps the system by supplying the engine with ideal amount of air in a timely manner at idling conditions. </p>
<p align="left">The device will then augment the necessary air needed, due to the inefficiency of the sensors and motorized valve controllers to comprehend the excessive and unusual variability of incoming streams of data which, at some point, feedbacks could not be processed immediately by the microprocessor. </p>
<p align="left">Therefore, a slight delay in reaction time occurs. </p>
<p align="left">But these delays are still within the malfunction thresholds. Thus, the malfunction indicator light will not illuminate. </p>
<p align="center"><strong><u>Frequently Asked Questions about the Khaos Super Turbo Charger </u></strong></p>
<p align="left"><strong>What is Khaos Super Turbo Charger (KSTC)? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Khaos is an air regulating device based on state of the art 100% complete combustion technology which introduces the right amount of air required for proper ratio of air and gasoline mixture. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>How does KSTC differ from other existing anti-pollution &amp; gas saving devices? </strong></p>
<p align="left">KSTC does not require chemical additives and moving parts to function. KSTC is also maintenance free. Just clean the filter with soap and water to keep it in perfect condition. KSTC is one-of-a-kind. It is designed to save gas and stop pollution. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>What benefits can be expected once KSTC is installed on gasoline fed vehicles? </strong></p>
<p align="left">As a gas savings and anti-pollution device, it makes the engine burn fuel efficiently and eliminates air pollutants specially the most lethal gas -carbon monoxide. It likewise minimizes other pollutants like hydro carbon, carbon dioxide, and oxide of nitrogen to less harmful levels. Since KSTC achieves efficient combustion it can prolong the lifespan of the engine, spark plugs, mufflers and engine oil. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>Does KSTC increase engine power? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Instantly! Increase in engine power is immediately felt right after installation. This is because the correct mixture ratio of 15 parts of air and 1 part of gasoline is attained. Complete combustion means more power. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>Can KSTC prove its claims? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Yes. It has been used by motorists for 30 years now and has gone through rigid testing by leading car manufacturers and government agencies including the Department of Energy. Results showed significant savings on gas consumption, increase in engine power and a drop in carbon monoxide to zero levels. Khaos has been cited with a Presidential Award as the Most Outstanding Invention for Transportation &amp; Environment during the Filipino Inventors Week Nov. 26-30 2003 at Philtrade, Philippines. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>Where do you install KSTC? </strong></p>
<p align="left">KSTC is installed at the intake manifold of vehicles, either carburator or injection type. Installation takes only 30 minutes. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>Is it compatible with vehicles with automatic transmission? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Yes, for as long as the vehicle is gasoline fed. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>Is tune-up or adjustment of the engine necessary before the installation of KSTC? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Yes, we suggest that the engine be properly maintained and should be at its normal condition. As a rule, KSTC mechanics check the engine first before installation takes place. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>What's the savings percentage on gasoline consumption once KSTC is installed? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Based on the performance of 1,000 different types of vehicles with KSTC installed, savings of 15% to 50% was achieved, depending on the type and condition of the vehicle. An average of 25% gas savings was usually observed. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>How long before we can recover our investment on a KSTC? </strong></p>
<p align="left">It depends on your gasoline saving percentage, say 10%-25%, plus the prolonged life span of your spark plugs, muffler, engine oil and the engine itself. Return on investment is less than a year. Plus KSTC will last for a lifetime with a money back guarantee. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>How does KSTC differ from a catalytic converter since it is also an anti pollution device? </strong></p>
<p align="left">A Catalytic Converter is a post combustion device that filters and deposits the pollutants in its chamber. KSTC is a pre-combustion device that ensures that unburned fuel (pollutants) will be completely burned every time through a ratio of 15 parts of air and 1 part gas mixture. </p>
<p align="left"><strong>What vehicles have been tested using KSTC? </strong></p>
<p align="left">Audi, BMW, Chevrolet, Daihatsu, Dodge, Ford, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Lexus, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Opel, Range Rover, Chrysler, Suzuki, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo. Plus all other brands of gasoline fed engines. </p></td>
</tr>
</table>

<br>
<table width="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td>taken from <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/khaos.htm">http://www.fuelsaving.info/khaos.htm</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> <strong>Case Study: the Khaos Super Turbo Charger (KSTC) </strong>
<p> The KSTC is an air-bleed device, devised in the 1970s by Pablo Planas from the Philippines but recently enjoying a surge of publicity. Air-bleed devices in general are dealt with on <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/air_bleed.htm">this </a> page, but focussing mainly on their effectiveness (or lack of) on vehicles with catalysts and lambda sensors. While such vehicles are now increasingly common in the Philippines, the main market for KSTC is older, less sophisticated engines typically using carburettors. This page deals specifically with this application. </p>
<p><br>
<strong>Theory </strong></p>
<p> Despite some attempts at "mystification", the basic operating principle of the KSTC is clear. It contains a regulating valve and also a spring-loaded (vacuum-operated) valve, which in combination allow more or less air to flow through the device and into the engine. This "KSTC air" does not pass through the carburettor, so it introduces less fuel, and the overall effect is a leaner air/fuel mixture. </p>
<p align="center"><img src="/files/gassavers/khaos2.jpg"><br>
(Picture courtesy of Ghosthunter on the <a href="http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/">tsikot.com </a> Forum) </p>
<p> The first point to note is that the use of the term "turbo charger" is highly misleading. In the automotive context, a "turbocharger" is very precisely defined as a device that uses the exhaust gas expelled from the engine to spin a turbine, which in turn drives a compressor to <strong>force </strong> additional air into the engine under pressure. In this way the pressure in the intake manifold may be "boosted" to typically twice atmospheric pressure, thus approximately doubling the engine's power output. By contrast, air flow through the KSTC is driven purely by manifold vacuum - there is no type of "pressure charging" effect. </p>
<p><br>
The claim by KSTC's manufacturers (referred to simply as "Khaos" here from now on) is that this enleanment of the air/fuel mixture brings the air:fuel ratio close to the stoichiometrically ideally ratio of around 14.5:1, and thus supposedly vastly reduces pollution and gives very big fuel savings. (For example, see <a href="http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=4692">this </a> news story.) </p>
<p> In principle there is some truth in this. It is very well known that excessively rich mixture leads to high emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburnt hydrocarbons (HC), and also high fuel consumption. The theoretically ideal mixture is around 14.5 parts of air to 1 of fuel. This is known as the <strong>stoichiometric </strong> ratio. Variations from this are characterised by the term <strong>lambda </strong>, where lambda less than 1 means a rich mixture (excess fuel), and lambda greater than 1 means a lean mixture (excess air). If (for example) the engine is run at around lambda 0.9 (10% excess fuel), then the excess fuel is basically wasted; emissions of HC and CO are high, and fuel consumption is around 10% higher than it need be. </p>
<p> Where Khaos's claims depart entirely from reality is with the suggestion that it is common for the mixture to become extremely rich (AFR close to 1; lambda around 0.1) whenever the accelerator pedal is released (ie at idle). The automotive industry has understood the critical importance of fuel mixture control for the best part of a century, and the suggestion that <strong>all </strong>, or even <strong>most </strong>, vehicles suffer from this fundamental "defect" is highly offensive to those in the automotive industry who have worked hard for many decades to optimise economy and emissions. (That is not to say that there are definitely <strong>no </strong> vehicles that behave like this, but they are certainly a tiny minority.) </p>
<p> In fact, even relatively unsophisticated mechanical carburettors do a surprisingly good job of maintaining close to the ideal fuel/air mixture. A fuel/air mixture richer than about 7:1 (lambda = 0.5) simply will not burn, and in practice it is very rare to see mixtures richer than about 12:1 (lambda 0.8) unless the carburettor is faulty or grossly out of adjustment (other than for very brief "transient" effects). So it is exceptionally hard to see how the theoretical fuel economy gains could be more than about 20%, and even that assumes a "worst case" condition before the KSTC is fitted. </p>
<p> Running <em>leaner </em> than stoichiometric (lambda &gt; 1) can give a further very slight benefit in fuel consumption, but without changes to ignition timing to suit, the maximum benefit is only perhaps five percent. Lean running does in any case also produce a large rise in highly toxic oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions (see <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/air_bleed.htm">here </a>) and may give other additional problems. </p>
<p><br>
Granted, the above analysis indicates that useful savings in fuel consumption and emissions may be obtained by "leaning out" engines currently running excessively rich (say lambda 0.9 or less). So clearly fitting the KSTC can be of benefit? Well, technically yes, but there is a very much cheaper and simpler way to obtain the same benefit. All carburettor systems (and non-catalyst fuel injection systems) contain a "mixture adjustment control", to allow the service mechanic to adjust the air/fuel ratio and compensate for any wear or "drift" in the system. It is usually a standard part of the annual service to read the air/fuel ratio in the exhaust using a gas analyser, and adjust the mixture control at idle until the correct figure (typically lambda 0.95 ... 1.00 (13.8 ... 14.5:1 AFR)) is obtained. </p>
<p> So if you want to improve the fuel economy and emissions of your vehicle, the first and most important thing to do is carry out a routine service, including <strong>adjustment of the mixture control </strong> as described above. If the correct mixture cannot be obtained, because the carburettor is worn or faulty, get it repaired - either way will be <strong>much </strong> cheaper than having a KSTC fitted, and the engine will then be working the way the manufacturer originally intended. Interestingly, I understand that a "tune-up" is in fact a standard part of the KSTC fitting procedure, which a cynic would suggest means that the tune-up rather than the KSTC is reponsible for most if not all of the apparent benefits. </p>
<p> An additional issue is that the KSTC fundamentally only has a large effect at idle (ie when the driver is not pressing the throttle.) At higher loads and speeds, the proportion of the engine's air passing through the KSTC drops off dramatically and so the amount of enleanment (and hence benefit) also reduces. By contrast, altering the mixture control generally (although not always) affects the mixture at all speeds and loads, and so gives benefits in normal driving as well. </p>
<p> Finally, it is important to realise that there is such a thing as "too lean". The desired lambda at idle is, as mentioned above, typically around 0.95 ... 1.00. Running the engine leaner than this is likely to cause misfires, poor running, high HC emissions and bad "driveability". To some extent this is masked by the KSTC, since the extra air flow tends to increase the idle speed which naturally gives "smoother" running - a higher idle is however also bad since it increases fuel consumption and noise. </p>
<p> As a general rule, returning the engine to the manufacturer's desired state (air/fuel ratio and idle speed) is the best option for optimising fuel consumption, driveability and emissions - rather than simply adding an essentially random amount of additional air, as the KSTC does, which is just as likely to make things worse as better. </p>
<p> One might wonder how the KSTC manages to add the <a href="http://www.khaos.ph/faqs.php#1">correct </a> amount of additional air, under <strong>all </strong> circumstances, given that it has no feedback of how much air is "missing" (like a modern vehicle with a lambda sensor does) and has a relatively crude adjustment mechanism. Which do you think is more likely to be able to calculate how much air the engine needs - a sophisticated computer controller with sensors for temperature, pressure, engine speed, etc, set up at the factory by skilled engineers over thousands of hours of testing, or a metal tube with a spring? </p>
<p> In fact, vehicles with electronic fuel injection - even relatively simple systems without catalysts or lambda sensors - take things even further. Designers of these systems realised at least 20 years ago that, if the driver lifts off the accelerator pedal above about 2000 rpm (slowing down or driving down a hill), the injectors can be switched off completely. With this "overrun fuel cut-off" the fuel consumption under these conditions is, of course, reduced to zero, and adding additional "KSTC air" cannot make it any less! This highlights the main argument against the KSTC: perhaps it was of genuine benefit on many vehicles in 1973, when it was first developed, but engine technology has advanced enormously since then - which Khaos apparently do not at all acknowledge. </p>
<p><br>
<strong>KSTC test results </strong></p>
<p> It is worth commenting on the various test results for the KSTC, and why they prove less than most people think. </p>
<p> Firstly, we have a large amount of <strong>fuel consumption data measured on the road </strong> - both "anecdotal" information from users, and semi-scientific studies from various researchers. While superficially persuasive, such data in fact proves nothing at all. The problem is that on-road fuel economy is so greatly affected by other factors (traffic, driving style, weather, type of journey, etc) that any effect of the KSTC is completely masked. See <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm">this </a> page for some general comments on on-road fuel consumption measurement. </p>
<p><br>
Second, there are the measurements of <strong>emissions at idle </strong>. It is common to see idle CO concentration drop from (say) 2% to 0.2% when the KSTC is fitted. This is claimed to be "proof" of massively improved combustion, and leads to the claim that the KSTC <a href="http://www.mb.com.ph/MAIN2005051534745.html">"eliminates pollution" </a>. In fact this is highly simplistic - it is very well known that CO is strongly affected by air/fuel ratio, and indeed CO is usually used as a <a href="http://www.perfectpower.com/Technical_info/afr.asp">guide </a> to setting the desired AFR. A reduction in CO from 2% to 0.2% just indicates that the mixture is about 5% leaner. </p>
<p> But a reduction from 2% to 0.2% is a good improvement, surely? Well, yes, but this is <strong>only at idle </strong>. The total pollution emitted from a vehicle in operation is dominated by the emissions while driving; idle is only a relatively small fraction, even when the vehicle is used in very busy traffic. And as explained above, the "benefit" from the KSTC falls rapidly away from idle. "Certification" emissions tests, through which all new car designs must pass, measure emissions throughout a simulated drive cycle, since it is well understood that idle emissions are a poor guide to "real world" pollution. </p>
<p> Also, don't forget that this figure is simply a <strong>concentration </strong> rather than an absolute amount. If the amount of gas passing through the engine increases, then the <em>percentage </em> CO will fall even if the total <em>amount </em> remains constant. Again, "certification" emissions tests always report the total mass of pollutant (typically grammes per kilometer driven) for exactly this reason. </p>
<p><br>
Thirdly, there are a very small number of <strong>"proper", "scientific" </strong><a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/drive_cycle.htm">drive-cycle </a> tests. This sort of test is exactly what is needed to prove claims as extraordinary as Khaos', and should prove the point one way or another. Two sets of tests have been carried out; by the Automotive Research and Testing Center (Taiwan) and Vipac Engineers &amp; Scientists Ltd (Australia). Both <a href="http://www.khaos.ph/faqs.php#6">apparently </a> showed "substantial fuel savings and big drops in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon levels". </p>
<p> The Taiwan data is widely available on the Internet, and also <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/KSTC_result.jpg">here </a>. What does this show? Well, the first and most fundamental point is that this is a <strong>single test </strong>, with the KSTC fitted. How can this show a "substantial improvement" in <em>anything </em>, if there is no "without KSTC" result to compare it with? However, we <strong>can </strong> compare the figures for the toxic pollutants (CO, HC, NOx) with values for other vehicles. </p>
<p> Any new car sold in the Philippines since 1st January 2003 <a href="http://www.doh.gov.ph/ra7885.htm">must </a> meet the "Euro 1" emissions standards: CO 2.72 g/km, HC + NOx 0.97 g/km. By comparison, the figures for the KSTC-equipped vehicle are CO 7.85 g/km, HC + NOx 4.12 g/km. <strong>So the vehicle fitted with KSTC - a device that supposedly "eliminates pollution" - is three times over the limit for CO, and four times over the limit for HC + NOx! </strong></p>
<p> Critically important here is that vehicles with exhaust catalysts - which Khaos generally imply are inferior to the KSTC - <strong>do </strong> easily meet the Euro 1 standard. Indeed, catalysed vehicles have been giving emissions less than a <strong>tenth </strong> of those from the KSTC test vehicle, as a matter of absolute routine, for at least the past 15 years. </p>
<p><br>
Suspiciously, nobody outside of Khaos seems to have seen the Australian test results, and despite trying several times to contact <a href="http://www.vipac.com.au/">Vipac </a>, I have failed to get confirmation that the tests have even been carried out, let alone that they were as positive as Khaos claim. If I were trying to sell a novel product, and had expensive test data from a reputable company that proved its effectiveness, I would post the results all over the Internet - not keep them secret. What do Khaos have to hide here? If anyone <strong>does </strong> manage to find this data, then please <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/contact.htm"> let me know </a> so I can evaluate it properly. </p>
<p><br>
There is a saying in science - "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". The theory makes it clear that Khaos' claims are highly implausible, therefore very strong test data is needed to prove these claims. Such data simply does not exist, or if it does it has been very well hidden for some astonishing reason. What is needed is some more drive-cycle tests, with several repeats and A-B-A testing, as demanded by the United States <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/b00003.pdf">Environmental Protection Agency </a> for assessing fuel "saving" devices. Such testing is not cheap - probably 25 000 US$ - but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits Khaos could make by proving their device works. Why, then, are they apparently reluctant to spend the money on such tests? </p>
<p><br>
<strong>Effect on engine power </strong></p>
<p>Khaos <a href="http://www.khaos.ph/faqs.php#5">claim </a> that fitting the KSTC increases engine power. This is however highly implausible - when the throttle is fully opened to obtain full power (accelerator pedal fully pressed), the manifold vacuum is extremely small and so the air flow through the KSTC is essentially zero, and it can have no significant effect on the engine. I have scoured the Web for any reliable test data (dyno testing, acceleration measurements, etc) to demonstrate genuinely improved power, but have so far failed to find any. All we have are anecdotal claims along the lines of "my car feels quicker now" - which proves nothing at all. And don't forget that any actual improvements may, as mentioned before, be due to the "tune-up" rather than the KSTC. </p>
<p> On the other hand, many commentators on various discussion forums have speculated on the risk of engine damage through overheating due to fitting a KSTC. Certainly it is true that the highest exhaust gas temperature occurs at around lambda 1.05, and deliberate enrichment is commonly used on high-performance engines in particular to keep temperatures down at full load. Therefore, if the mixture is made leaner there is a risk of catastrophic engine damage. However, since the air flow through the KSTC (and therefore its effect on air/fuel mixture) falls to essentially zero at wide-open throttle, I doubt this effect could really occur. It does however serve as an indication of why adjusting the engine parameters away from their original design specification can be dangerous. </p>
<p><br>
<strong>Rigorous testing of similar devices </strong></p>
<p> The US EPA have been conducting rigorous tests on a number of fuel "saving" products, including air-bleed devices very similar in concept to the KSTC, since the early 1970s. Devices tested on vehicles with relatively simple mechanical carburettors include the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb218438.pdf">Pollution Master </a>, the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb81229866.pdf">Fuel-Max </a> and the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb82142100.pdf">Landrum Mini-Carb </a> (caution, big PDF files). <strong>No air-bleed device tested by the EPA has given more than a tiny improvement in fuel consumption </strong>, and in many cases a large increase in NOx emissions also occured. </p>
<p><br>
<strong>Pablo Planas' huge financial offers </strong></p>
<p> I cannot leave this topic without mentioning the vast financial offers alledgedly made to Mr Planas by various large Western automotive companies. Supposedly Planas turned these offers down as he wanted to keep his invention in the Philippines. Now, I have worked for or with some of the biggest car and car part manufacturers in Europe, and in my opinion it is inconceivable that any major company would offer even a hundredth of the figures being talked about for the rights to the KSTC. While a device that genuinely did what Khaos claim probably <strong>would </strong> be worth tens of millions of US$, the long history of bogus fuel "saving" products means that any company would demand far more rigorous proof that the device really does work before handing over any money. </p>
<p> Additionally, if the device really did function as claimed, it is likely that a major company would simply copy the idea then use its huge muscle to crush Planas in the courts. The KSTC is after all in principle almost identical to dozens of other air-bleed devices previously marketed, and it is very hard to see how Mr Planas could demonstrate sufficient "inventiveness" for his Patent to hold up. If Planas really was offered 100 million US$, and turned it down, he was very badly advised. </p>
<p><br>
<strong>Closing </strong></p>
<p> Some sceptics, reading this, will say "Western vested interests trying to put down a brave Filipino entrepreneur again". Nothing could be further from the truth - I would be very happy to see a Filipino inventor produce some extraordinary new idea that revolutionises the automotive industry, especially if it benefits the whole planet's environment. (And indeed, it must be clear to anyone reading other pages on this site that I am equally critical of many Western fuel "saving" devices.) My real reasons for pointing out the problems with the KSTC are twofold: </p>
<p> 1) It seems that, at the very least, it is being "mis-sold", and I don't like to see people spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't actually do what is claimed </p>
<p> 2) The KSTC, for some reason, appears to have the backing of many influential people in the Philippines. The risk is that this diverts attention from <strong>genuine </strong> ways to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, which are of course vital. For example, if owners of new cars start removing their catalytic converters and fitting KSTCs instead, the effect on air pollution in Manila could be catastrophic. </p>
<p><br>
NB Nothing on this page should be taken as an accusation of <strong>deliberate fraud </strong> by Mr Planas or Khaos. I strongly believe Planas is sincere but misguided - a perfect example of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". </p>
<p><br>
Both supporters and sceptics are of course welcome to <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/contact.htm">contact </a> me for further discussion. There is also a long and detailed <a href="http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15780">discussion </a> about KSTC on the tsikot.com Forum. </p></td>
</tr>
</table>

<br>
<table width="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td>taken from <a href="http://ronallan.blogspot.com/2005/04/peddling-snake-oil-khaos-super-turbo.html">http://ronallan.blogspot.com/2005/04/peddling-snake-oil-khaos-super-turbo.html</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> If you drive or are at least into cars, no doubt you've probably heard at one time or another about the <a href="http://www.khaos.ph/">Khaos Super Turbo Charger </a>. It's a device that is claimed to drastically reduce the fuel consumption of your gasoline driven vehicle by as much as 50%. It created such a hype when it was introduced in November 2003 after glowing reviews and endorsements from, among others, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Makati Land Transportation Office (LTO) and Taiwan's Automotive Research and Testing Center. Even Malaca&ntilde;ang got into the picture, and presented the inventor, Pablo Planas, with a Presidential Award Medal for Outstanding Invention. All in all, various government agencies and government officials got into the picture, singing the praises of a device that miraculously reduces fuel consumption by a significant margin. As a result, in less than a year, more than 3,500 units were sold and installed to customers who swear by the product's effectiveness. <br>
<br>
Is it the real thing, or is it just snake oil? <br>
<br>
Before anyone accuses me of demonstrating crab or colonial mentality, first and foremost, I would like to make it plainly clear that I would be as happy as any Filipino would be if an invention of Filipino origin would be accepted and used worldwide. Such an eventuality would be a source of pride not only for me, but for all Filipinos everywhere. But we can't uphold national pride at the expense of the truth. And what is the truth anyway? <br>
<br>
The truth is, there is nothing truly remarkable or revolutionary about Pablo Planas' invention. It does save fuel under certain conditions, but it does not necessarily work as advertised. Actually, that's about the only thing it does if at all. And it doesn't do so without a price (other than the P6,500.00 purchase price) as you shall soon see. <br>
<br>
I'm not an expert mechanic, or an engineer, so I don't claim to be the final authority on this issue. However, as an automobile enthusiast, a science and mechanics buff, and an experienced driver, I am more than familiar with the underlying concepts of automobile engine operation, so at the very least, my opinions should encourage you to seek the truth for yourselves. <br>
<br>
The Khaos Super Turbo Charger (KSTC for short), despite its name, is not a turbocharger. It doesn't utilize the engine's exhaust gases to drive an impeller which in turn drives a turbine to force-feed more air in the engine. Nor is it a supercharger (same principle as a turbocharger, but instead of using exhaust gases to drive a turbine, it uses engine power via a drive belt) It's nothing like that. <br>
<br>
The KSTC is a simple device which allows more air to flow through a calibrated and filtered hole in the intake manifold. By controlling this airflow, it ensures that that the ratio of air to fuel is stoichiometrically correct, that is, at the proper ratio of 14.7 to 1. That is the claim, at least. <br>
<br>

Since the air is entering the intake manifold independently of the fuel induction system (fuel injector/s, carburetor) which already performs the function of mixing the gasoline with air in a stoichiometrically correct ratio (assuming of course, that the fuel injection system or carburetor is properly maintained), and add to that the fact that the air directly entering the intake manifold via the KSTC is unmeasured , in effect it induces the engine to run in a lean burn situation. The claim that it ensures the proper ratio of air to fuel at 14.7 to 1 is simply untrue . <br>
<br>
In a nutshell, if your fuel injection system or carburetor is working properly, the air-fuel mixture coming out of it is already stoichiometrically correct, depending on driving conditions. Add more air to the equation, via the KSTC, and you're already ruining the ratio. <br>
<br>
What effect does lean burning have? Obviously, if you're running an engine on lean burn, you're using up less fuel. That's probably the only thing correct in their marketing. While less fuel translates into better fuel economy, it does not necessarily translate to better engine performance. Running an engine with a lean mixture increases spark plug tip temperature and combustion chamber pressure, which can result in pre-ignition or pre-detonation - sometimes known as "dieseling," "knocking" or "pinging," in local parlance, "katok." This not only significantly decreases engine performance, it also increases engine temperature, and may also damage your pistons, valves and cylinder walls if it happens often enough. If the inventor or the marketers insist that it does increase power, why not prove it by running an engine on a dynanometer, with and without the KSTC? Only after such a test has been done can we say with certainty that it does increase power. So far, I haven't heard or read of any such test being done. To be honest, knowing how it works, I seriously doubt it if a dynanometer test will indeed show that the KSTC increases power. <br>
<br>
It is also claimed that the KSTC reduces engine pollution by almost 100% . Any engine which burns fossil fuels will produce pollutants. In fact, there are cars now which are meet LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) and ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards. ULEV standards require achieving 0.04 grams per mile of non-methane organic compounds (NMOG) unburned hydrocarbons (HC) produced during engine warm-up which is 46 percent lower than the LEV standard for NMOG (0.075) and 84 percent lower than the current standard (0.25). The NOx (oxides of nitrogen) standard is 0.2, the same as the LEV requirement. They achieve this through the use of sophisticated computer controlled direct injection, exhaust gas recirculation, and three-way catalytic converter technologies. And yet, the pollution they emit is not "zero" by any means. The claims that a simple airflow device can do just that is too good, too farfetched to be true. The best way for a car to have "zero" emissions is to leave the car in the parking lot. <br>
<br>
In fact, lean-burn engines (which is in essence what your engine becomes after being installed with a KSTC) generate excessive NOx emissions - a "greenhouse" gas, excess quantities of which can overwhelm catalytic converters. A lean burn engine's tendency to misfire also produces greater quantities of unburned hydrocarbons, further straining the catalytic converter, possibly cause it overheat, even ruining it. <br>
<br>
Save your money, and avoid the risks involved. If your car's engine is computer controlled, the engine computer, acting in concert with the engine air flow sensor, electronic fuel injectors, and exhaust oxygen sensor, will maintain the stoichiometric ratio for most of your driving. You don't need a device like the KSTC to do that task. Seriously, do you think a shiny metal pipe with some springs and valves would do a better job of ensuring the proper air-fuel ratio than the sophisticated ECU (electronic control unit) of your car? <br>
<br>
If your car is carbureted, have its carburetor cleaned and give your car a tune up as well. A KSTC will improve your engine's fuel economy, but you'll probably have reduced performance, increased engine operating temperatures, and possible long term damage to your engine. If you do want to run your engine lean, you can accomplish the same function as the KSTC by simply adjusting your carburetor's airscrew. And adjusting the airscrew is free . <br>
<br>
If you're interested in a truly scientific explanation why air bleed devices of this sort do not work as advertised, check out <a href="http://www.fuelsaving.info/air_bleed.htm">Tony's Guide to Fuel saving gadgets - Air bleeds into the inlet manifold </a>. It explains in greater technical detail why gas-saving devices like the KSTC do not actually work, and how they may also put your car's engine, and even your life, at risk. <br>
<br>
All in all, if it were my car, I'd skip the KSTC entirely. <br>
<br>
I think it's even worse than snake oil, since it can potentially harm your engine, but that's just my opinion. <br>
<br>
Planas said that he has received <a href="http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/ht/ht004666.htm">offers </a> from companies based in the United States, Germany, Singapore and China after his invention passed the emission standards set by Taiwan. There was also supposedly a multi-million dollar deal which included the migration of his family to the United States, which he said he turned down. Isn't it every inventor's dream for his or her invention to be mass produced? His reply was: "If I accept the offer, Filipinos would not be able to buy my device because only First World countries would benefit and be able to afford it." I leave the judgement of such a statement to you. <br>
<br>
He also claims to be coming up with a version of the KSTC for diesel engines. I personally think that this is highly improbable if he is still relying on the same concept. A diesel engine, by its very nature, is already a lean-burn engine. That's why diesel engines are inherently more fuel efficient than gasoline engines, and why they run hotter. Add any more air, and it probably wouldn't start anymore. <br>
<br>
It was also reported that a former <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.com/">Lockheed-Martin </a> engineer is intent on lobbying for the use of the invention in the United States. I also find this highly doubtful. Lockheed-Martin? The company behind the F-16 Falcon, the F-117 Nighthawk, and the next generation F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Any engineer worth his salt should be able to see the inability of the KSTC to live up to all its claims. It's just media hype, and the uncontrollable nationalistic urge in this country to support and endorse a Filipino's invention to the world. Even if that invention doesn't actually work. <br>
<br>
There are just too many flaws and inconsistencies in the supposed scientific explanation on how it works, and hardly any objective third party test results made available to the public. It is this lack of hard objective scientific proof which makes me a skeptic. Internet research has also shown that this device is not unique, and there are other devices ( <a href="http://www.ecotekplc.com/cb-26p.htm">Ecotek CB-26P </a>, <a href="http://www.powerjetusa.com/english/english.htm">PowerJet USA </a>, etc.) which make the same claims based on same "scientific" explanation. There is also evidence that the concept has been around as early as 1972 ( <a href="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb220002.pdf">Air-Jet Device </a>), and probably even earlier. <br>
<br>
If anyone is aware of any web site which objectively states that the KSTC is the real thing, let me know. I have searched long and hard, and haven't found any. <br>
<br>
The bottomline? In my humble opinion, literally and figuratively , the Khaos Super Turbo Charger is nothing but hot air . Stay far away folks. Only wish I made this post earlier to save some of my friends the aggravation. No offense meant to anyone who takes the opposite position . <br>
<br>
That's my take on the KSTC. If you are so inclined, conduct your own research, and decide for yourself. If you believe that the KSTC is the real deal, then by all means go right ahead and have it installed on your vehicle. That's your choice. All I ask is that you, the consumer, make an informed decision. And don't get carried away by all the hype. <br>
<br>
Quaere Verum. </td>
</tr>
</table>

<br>
<table width="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td><em>The following was taken from <a href="http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19182">http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19182</a>. </em></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hello Everyone, <br>
<br>
It's been a while since I made a post concerning my unbiased test of Khaos in California. In my last post, I indicated a 4% efficiency gain in mileage per gallon. It has been almost 3 months since I have Khaos installed in my 1991 Toyota MR2. I have been consistently getting 24-26 miles per gallon compared to 23-25 miles per gallon prior to the Khaos install. As I have indicated in my previous report, I have not recommended the Khaos yet due to the initial cost compared to the savings. I calculated that it would take approximately 18 months to recover the initial investment. <br>
<br>
I just went in and took my car to the California Required bi-annual threadmill smog test and it is sad to say the car failed. <br>
<br>
Let me know if you can access this test report ( <a href="http://home.comcast.net/%7Epinay27/index.html">http://home.comcast.net/~pinay27/index.html </a>), if not outlined below is the summary: <br>
<br>
TEST ==== RPM ========HC(PPM) ======= CO% ====== NO (PPM) <br>
= MAX = MEAS = MAX = MEAS = MAX = MEAS <br>
15 MPH ===1971 118 31 0.75 0.34 799 979 <br>
25MPH === 2140 93 24 0.63 0.30 738 933 <br>
<br>
Reading the other threads about Khaos , other tsikoteers made very wise assumptions and made warnings about increased NOX due to the lean mixture caused by KHAOS and possible future engine damage. <br>
<br>
Well, I immediately removed Khaos and got my car re-tested at the same shop and here is the second test without KHAOS . <br>
<br>
TEST RPM HC(PPM) CO% NO (PPM) <br>
MAX MEAS MAX MEAS MAX MEAS <br>
15 MPH 1919 118 43 0.75 0.31 799 835 <br>
25MPH 2103 93 29 0.63 0.29 738 801 <br>
<br>
Again, failed test due to high NOx but noticeable improvement of NO emmision. I took the car to a filipino mechanic here who, surprisingly has not heard of KHAOS , made a diagnosis and concluded that the catalytic converter is fouled up and needs to be replaced. Initial estimate to replace the "cat" is at a discounted $160.00. <br>
<br>
Wow, I only had Khaos in the Car for 3 months and it fouled up the catalytic converter that quick and would possibly cost me at least $160.00 to repair. Please note that I had the same car smogged 18 months prior and it passed with no problem. <br>
<br>
Here is the link to verify my recent tests. (Just copy and paste the following vin# jt2sw21n6m0006347) at: <a href="http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/vehtests/pubtstqry.aspx">http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/vehtests/pubtstqry.aspx </a><br>
<br>
Another link discussing NOx emmision repairs and causes: <br>
<a href="http://www.wivip.com/3_5_1.PDF">http://www.wivip.com/3_5_1.PDF </a><br>
<br>
I also scanned both test reports but it was too big (690 kb) to upload. I can email it to anyone including Mr. Planas or Freeman. Maybe ghost can give me his email address so he can somewhat post this test report. <br>
<br>
I initially read on the thread that Mr. Planas and inventionhaus is thinking of global marketing to include US. Fair warning lang po, siguradong ma-hahabla kayo dito for mis-representation, Pangalan lang misrepresented na (This is not a Turbo-Charger!) Guaranteed lawsuits if this Khaos device is marketed in the US that could amount to millions of dollars in penalty. Baka pati buong Pinas ma-bankrupt. I was really hoping for this device to work para naman may Filipinong sikat dito, pero nakakahiya ang mangyayari. <br>
<br>
So why am I doing this, kawawa naman yung mga kababayan natin diyan. I am hoping that I can prevent someone from being duped into getting khaos . <br>
<br>
So who is accountable, Planas, Inventionhaus, politicians the media or perhaps all? For making an unfounded endorsement of KHAOS ? Don't you think someone has to be responsible enough to verify a product first prior to making an endorsement (Baka naman nakuha sa "Lagay" , uso pa ba yun dyan?). <br>
<br>
By the way I have not even touch on the effects to the environment of increased NOx, but that will make this thread too long. <br>
<br>
Cmon anyone in the media, I am challenging you to do the responsible thing and print my test report or you can do your own test and publish it. Apektado ang environment at ang ating mga kababayan. </td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>While in theory this device seems to make sense, it really doesn't. Cars today are computer controlled to maintain the proper 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, even while idling. Adding a device that further leans out your air/fuel ratio may give you slightly better gas mileage, but it will do damage to your engine, and it will do it rather quickly. This is true especially if your vehicle is not built for lean mixtures. Some engines are built to run ultra-lean air/fuel ratio (such as the Civic VX in economy mode). Further leaning out fuel is not recommended.</p>
__________________

Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 12:26 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1
Country: United States
Regarding Real-World Use of the KSTC

I'm a member of the online forum board "tsikot" from which the last message was taken, as well as a member of a local Ford club.

Within the past two years, the KSTC has been marketed by everyone from Government officials to Car Dealerships, all with claims of improved fuel consumption. Enthusiasts like myself have been waging a war against this device for over a year now. As I can't add anything scientific or useful that hasn't been said, I'd like to report on the experiences of non-technical/expert end-users.

Anecdotal evidence as submitted by motorists have been mixed. While some have claimed increased mileage and lower consumption, it is rarely ever more than 1-2 km/l. Some users have complained of poor performance and bogging. Two users, both driving Ford Lynx 1.6 vehicles (Mazda Protege 1.6) have actually had permanent damage occur to their MAP sensors because of this device (see fordclubph.com for details).

There has been only one "test" done in this country for media and government (Dept. of Science and Technology -DOST) representatives, but the driving portion of the test was not done under controlled conditions, and the emissions portion was a fluke, as the mechanics who installed the device were KSTC technicians. One tsikot.com board member claims that they tampered with the throttle cable during the test to raise the idle speed of the vehicle during the test.

While some reporters have done their best to expose the KSTC's fradulent claims, positive reports and articles still appear frequently in major dailies. It's disheartening to see how little the truth is valued, even by those who are supposed to expose it.
niky is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scangauge 2 vs Supermid dcoyne78 Hypermiling 11 01-04-2011 07:06 AM
Print Lauriefire Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 10-30-2010 12:21 PM
How do I start? Enter my first fuel up? thirtythreedragons Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 10-07-2009 07:18 AM
Individual Fuel Ups Reporting 0.0 Odometer jlmasonwv Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 09-17-2008 06:27 AM
50MPG coming in 2009! Joe75 General Fuel Topics 2 09-11-2008 10:08 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.