Bio Performance Fuel - Additive + story - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:31 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Bio Performance Fuel - Additive + story

So here's the story...
My roommate's boss gave this fuel additive stuff to me... Didn't really say if it worked, but I have a SG and can do some form of testing on it... It doesn't hurt that the company mybpbiz.com has gone "away" somewhere (I need to research why).

So I got the bottle, opened it up and my first reaction was "Blah, moth balls"

------
Another friend of mine is a Micro Molecular Biology major... I sent him an eMail asking for a favor (if possible) - I want to identify a sample under a mass spectrometer, I suspect Naphthalene or whatever they use in moth balls nowadays (Naphthalene is flammable - not good on clothing ).

------
Okay... so I got the google cache for mybpbiz.com http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
and looky what I found!

Quote:
"This product contains naphthalene as an active ingredient. Short term exposure, inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact with naphthalene is associated with hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, and neurological damage. Please store in a ventilated area at all times."
The irony! I guessed what it was by scent alone

------
So, given the volatility and toxicity of this crap.... Is it eve worth testing?



EDIT: It gets better... Looks like someone (at my university no less) beat me to the punch... They already tested a sample and found it to be just shy of 100% Naphthalene: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...entral_Florida
__________________

__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 02:54 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
http://www.cartalk.com/content/colum...bruary/09.html
"if you put mothballs in your gas tank, any sweaters you store in there will come out without moth holes in them. "
__________________

__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 03:47 AM   #3
Registered Member
 
ZugyNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 587
Country: United States
If you fully read....

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...entral_Florida

...it goes a lot deeper than that.

Supposed to be a naphthenate with the metal ions replaced by enzymes.

Testing destroys the enzymes?
__________________
Leading the perpetually ignorant and uninformed into the light of scientific knowledge. Did I really say that?

a new policy....I intend to ignore the nescient...a waste of time and energy.
ZugyNA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 02:20 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugyNA View Post
If you fully read....

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...entral_Florida

...it goes a lot deeper than that.

Supposed to be a naphthenate with the metal ions replaced by enzymes.

Testing destroys the enzymes?
That's what the claim was at the time.... However, on the company website at the time it was taken down clearly states that it's naphthalene (see my OP). Additionally, I can't find anywhere else that claims Naphthenates decompose with mild heat (you know, temperatures you'd find in your car anyway)... Furthermore, some Naphthenates has a diesel like odor (like the wood preservatives that use the stuff) while others have almost no odor - and not anything like what mothballs smells like...

So also.... it doesn't hurt that it does indeed ignite (a property of Naphthalene)... I didn't even need to bring the flame to the pill, the fumes alone did the trick...

They had an MSDS and a contact person for the MSDS -- only problem is, the phone number is fake and the guy's answer machine says: "If this is about BioPerformance or BioPlus, I am not affiliated with either one."

------
I've done more homework on it -- and I'm not going to test it (the only reason to test it was the fact that it was free)... I'm going to recycle it The claims range from misleading to false.


This pretty much sums up anything that claims "complete burn" or "faster burn" claims quite eloquently. Okay, so I cited it, but didn't get permission to quote it - hopefully that's not a problem
http://www.fuelsaving.info/bioperformance.htm
Quote:
As a scientist and engineer, the explanation given by BioPerformance does not make a lot of sense to me. So far as I can tell they are claiming a kind of catalytic action, leading to a faster and more complete burn. As I explain on this page, in general there is little reason to expect this to lead to an improvement in fuel economy. The burn on any modern engine is already 98 - 99% complete; that is to say, the energy of the unburnt and partially burnt fuel in the gas leaving the engine only represents about 1 - 2% of the energy in the input fuel (and so the potential for improvement is similarly limited). Making the burn faster, as explained here, can in theory give small improvements in economy, but since the engine is optimised (in terms of ignition timing etc) for the "normal" burn rate, in practice it is likely to make economy worse, if anything.
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 03:05 PM   #5
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
I wonder if I should sticky this...

Very good work!
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 05:48 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Another good report!

I recall hearing stories of drag racers in the 50's putting moth-balls in their fuel tanks for added power. Best I can remember is a boost in octane (before all that fancy unleaded gas came out).

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 03:15 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
ZugyNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 587
Country: United States
Yet results are seen time and time again where improving the burn efficiency has increased mpg? Grooves, etc....some fuel additives....and so on....

Some additives work by slowing the burn.

I can't say anything specific about BioPerformance....but I'm thinking the claims of "disproving" various methods of increasing mpg OTHER than by driving technique is not based on good science...i.e....is not exactly rational. Too much satisfaction in killing things?

Too many people including myself have increased mpg by various means OTHER than driving techniques.

I recently gained maybe 3 to 4 % mpg by using 10 oz WD40 per 10 G...but not cost effective.
__________________
Leading the perpetually ignorant and uninformed into the light of scientific knowledge. Did I really say that?

a new policy....I intend to ignore the nescient...a waste of time and energy.
ZugyNA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 05:27 AM   #8
Registered Member
 
skewbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugyNA View Post
... "disproving" various methods of increasing mpg OTHER than by driving technique is not based on good science...
It's usually the other way around, where someone thinks there is a correlation to using "X" and mpg/power/verility/whatever and doesn't bother to do rigorous enough science to isolate the effects of "X" to substantiate their claims.

Look, we are human. We have a bias, we want the proverbial "silver bullet", we don't want to change our behavior (technique), we hear what we want to hear, and if someone writes a long and techy sounding paper about how putting apple cores in your tank will increase your mpg by 10%, it stands a good chance of sucking in a few people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugyNA View Post
I recently gained maybe 3 to 4 % mpg by using 10 oz WD40 per 10 G
One tank isn't "good" science either.
__________________
Standard Disclaimer
skewbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 03:20 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugyNA View Post
I can't say anything specific about BioPerformance....but I'm thinking the claims of "disproving" various methods of increasing mpg OTHER than by driving technique is not based on good science...i.e....is not exactly rational. Too much satisfaction in killing things?
What skewbe said without explicitly stating... It's the burden of the one claiming to provide suitable methodology and acceptable testing in a fashion that's repeatable by others in the community. The court asked, and didn't get such testing. The testing available doesn't talk about methodology (especially sample size). Driving technique is not suitable either -- that's one thing that must be controlled for statistical significance.

A good thing to keep in mind about anecdotal (testimonial) evidence.... Anecdotal evidence isn't.

Quote:
Some additives work by slowing the burn.
That's beside the point - this one claimed the opposite... In any case, slowing the burn down doesn't change energy output given that the burn in a modern engine is 98-99% complete

------

Quote:
I recall hearing stories of drag racers in the 50's putting moth-balls in their fuel tanks for added power. Best I can remember is a boost in octane (before all that fancy unleaded gas came out).
So that's where the ounce of possible truth comes in.... During that time, fuel didn't have a very high octane and the theory was mothballs would increase thus allowing for higher compression and timing adjustment... Naphthalene has an octane rating of 95.... you can buy 95 at some gas stations nowadays But that being said -- it didn't work then either

-------
More News

I had lunch today with my Micro Molecular Bio major friend.... He seemed a little disappointed that someone beat us to the punch. But I got more information... The mass spectrometer at UCF does NOT use an oven nor does it heat the sameple. My friend found that quite stupid. It uses light - and that's pretty much it. Which makes sense, look up how mass spectroscopy works - it shoots ions at the sample and measures their shift (Which will depend on chemical structure). He said with their machine, you clean the detector, load the sample and hit "print"

He asked me if I knew the basic chemical structure -- 2 benzene rings (pretty much) and he said something like that would show up perfectly on their machine
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 07:32 AM   #10
Registered Member
 
ZugyNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 587
Country: United States
Not to trample a dead horse or anything, but......

http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/aword.htm


the psychology:

It is common for people to be skeptical about new ideas. Some few people thrive on new ideas. Certain magazines are loaded with new stuff. But in these instances, the word new means popular. Thus in reality many technical persons are terrified of new ideas because unknown fresh concepts threaten their egos and attack (in their perception) their rigid previously held concepts with which they are familiar and comfortable. That which is truly new is never popular at first. The two hundredth monkey has to agree before any popularity is possible along with acceptance in general. Some cultures will never tolerate that which is new or different because these cultures promote intolerance and resist any change. To them, any change at all is bad. No amount of proof or compelling data will alter the mindset of someone who feels threatened by what conflicts with their previously established technical concepts. You might as well be attacking their religion, by the amount of resistance they put up. These individuals may refuse to even try something that other people say works great. They refuse and/or deny even the possibility that something could behave contrary to their personal views, indicating not only a lack of expertise in the field but such a rigid pattern also loudly states that these individuals are close-minded. Such a person would be a bad scientist and lousy experimenter.

BTW I consulted with three psychologists on why people fear the new. One told me that many individuals are insecure and unsure of new ideas or devices that upset their territorial domain. The other said newness is like a disease that they might have to fight or compete against and this scares the daylights out of them. The unknown is a dark demon to these rigid guys. But if someone tells them something absurd that they want to hear--of course they will believe it.

Why bring up things like the previous paragraph? It is because I have been an inventor most of my life and seldom has anyone ever said, "Wow, that's a great idea, Lou. I can't wait to try it." Usually they walk away or find reasons why it will not work. Today I only ask reasonable and intelligent persons to test my stuff. Good marketing attempts to prepare a targeted segment of the public to accept a new product or at least not jump away in horror. It may even be COOL to reject a new product. The cool cynical approach is also amusing to many who are insecure and anxious to ridicule what is new.

Usually people ridicule the unknown or flatly state that it is impossible. Even when I show a working example, there is this stone wall of refusal to accept anything new or what seems contrary to their personal beliefs. These individuals are in the majority and typically cannot understand general principles in physics or chemistry or other sciences. Eventually I meet people who are open-minded and receptive to new concepts. But they are rare. Even in universities there are numerous individuals who remain close-minded. Few are willing to experiment in a truly inductive method without prejudice or rigid personal views. But however one tests or experiments, one thing must be absolute--MAKE BUT ONE CHANGE AT ONE TIME.


http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm


the testing:


The best route for testing mileage is away from the city. Drive no more than 150 miles both ways. Or at least 10 miles both ways on a level road with a ScanGauge. Pick similar weather conditions for consistency during these test runs. Avoid mountains and use the same familiar freeway. Record the exact times and conditions for each mileage run as well as your average speeds and weather conditions. Speed is important. 50 MPH gives better MPG than 70. Record any and all changes made to the car. Use no trick additives in your base gas or you will taint the results. Do not add any substance during the trips to get your important baseline readings. And if possible use a video camera for verification and control. When you attempt to test mileage, you must also record the length of time and miles on your oil. Oil becomes used the minute you start your engine. And all used oil is a combination of gasoline and oil. The gasoline just gets in there the longer you drive. Plus you will find that brand new oil delivers the best mileage and that an excellent filter is a great help. The real question is how well do your oil and filter handle the gasoline dilution?

...

Imagine a 50-percent reduction in the use of automotive fuel in the U.S. THIS IS INDEED POSSIBLE and it could be implemented very quickly. In our own cars we have exceeded 50-percent reductions. 1995 Neon went from 26 to 62 MPG. 1995 Mazda went from 13 to 44 MPG. 1996 Olds went from 12 to 33 MPG. And we are not done improving yet.

NOTE: this is steady speed highway testing...no driving techniques used. This is a "system". one "system" among several.
__________________

__________________
Leading the perpetually ignorant and uninformed into the light of scientific knowledge. Did I really say that?

a new policy....I intend to ignore the nescient...a waste of time and energy.
ZugyNA 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
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
Missing Fuelup jmonty Fuelly Web Support and Community News 3 05-27-2009 05:10 AM
Article about the site on Boing Boing Gadgets. Honad General Fuel Topics 3 08-22-2008 12:18 AM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:55 PM.


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