Platinum Fuel Saver - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2010, 03:41 AM   #21
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Country: United States
I stand with what I said by personal experience, testing done independently by people actually using the device in fleet applications. School Districts, Law Enforcement fleets, NYC Taxi, Metropolitan waste disposal fleets, Municipal Transit buses, Approval under European testing standards, which are more ridged than here, for the device to be used by auto manufactures in place of catalytic converters. I can tell you it works, thousands of satisfied users can tell you it works, bottom line, you have to try it to know if it works. To stand by on the sidelines and and denigrate a product or technology out of hand is indeed a display of ignorance. History bears this out with most successful devices, light bulbs, telephones, horseless carriages, airplanes, computers and the list goes on..... All said in their day,by many scientists and prominent persons of varying degrees of intelligence, to be inventions of little practical use. HHO is another fuel alternative which will prove itself out as a useful fuel in and of itself. Not quite practical today but tomorrow for sure. If I were to take as fact prominent physicists, ASE engineers, Popular Mechanics and a few more knowledgeable folks I would never have put one together and used it, proving to my own satisfaction that it works but not without knowledgeable tinkering. Again prove it for your self........ or not. Then write about it. Insofar as calling me a liar for my life's experience and defending your position of ignorance. There is nothing wrong or disgraceful about ignorance, except in embracing it to maintain a position of comfort when offered an alternative to either prove or disprove a belief through your own effort. When these folks put their money where their mouth is, I took them up on the challenge, it works for me. I continue to use their products based on utility and savings. I have driven over a million accident free miles as a professional trucker, hauling all manner of commodities to the four corners of this country. These products will often make the difference between profit and loss in their utility. Things like no oil change costs, reduced pollution, and better mpg.
__________________

Popeee is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 04:48 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
you talk of matching wits and positions of ignorance. interestingly enough, you expect us to go by your words alone and reject the words of people that have tested this product (the EPA) and have said the opposite of you.

I would burn $5 to prove you wrong, I would burn $20 to prove you wrong, but you are talking about $60 for the refill. I would assume that the device itself would be much more than the refill cost. also, you have already once stated that someone that has tested this product and not gotten results must have tested it wrong so if I did take you up on it and test this product without any positive results, I feel that you would take the same position with me (or anyone else that tried)

extrordinary claimes require extrordinary evidence. a $60 investment to achieve $700 in savings. that's over 1000% profit. those numbers require some sort of evidence to back them up.

I think, in the end, it is funny that you continue to post pretty much the same responses to people. they are ignorant of the truth (that only you seem to know) and they are biased by their ignorance to keep the truth hidden to make themselves feel better.

ironically, you are selling the products talked about....which side has the bias again????
__________________

__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:20 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I like that.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:51 AM   #24
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
I've had that statement used on me several times and have had to rethink my position on a few subjects in the past.
__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 08:29 AM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 427
Country: United States
Here's A Thought!!!!!!!!!!!!


Saturns(s-series) Are Not Supposed To Use Platinum Plugs, Any Serious Saturn Owner Knows This, And The Stock Plugs Are Copper (autozone Will Try To Sell You Platinum's Anyhow), Some Vehicles Allow Platinum Plugs Though....

So Considering This Is All Going Into The Same Combustion Chamber, I Wouldn't Use This Product In A Car That Doesn't Allow Thee Use of Dealer Certified Platinum Plugs If I Were You, Actually I Wouldnt Use It At All, especially since my Alumaseal nightmare(clogged heater core).. But Hey Whatever Floats Your Boat
spotaneagle is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 08:36 AM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 427
Country: United States
btw fuel saving magnets dont work either
spotaneagle is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:02 AM   #27
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
I think that you need to show us that it works. Although gaslog entries can be forged, a good start would to be to enter your vehicles in the garage on this site, and enter all of your fuel purchases. Let us see your "real world" results.

The EPA has evaluated this device twice. Once in 1981, and then 10 years later in 1991. Consumer reports has evaluated the device, and has also found no increase in economy.

You speak of "road resonance" being required. I don't see how this is possible, since air is bubbled up through the solution, this should certainly supply all the agitation required (if any). How about people with smooth riding, well running vehicles? I make a point to keep my vehicles in top running condition, and to ride as smooth as possible. Because my vehicles run smooth & quiet, and ride extremely well, am I to assume if I were to try this device that it would not work for me?

Also, I might add, that being a moderator on this site I can tell you that we get people joining this site almost daily talking about some "miracle" device. You're not the first one to come with these types of claims, and nothing to back it up but your word (and I'm sure you won't be the last). Around here respect is earned. Show us that it works. Show us that its economical. Show us results from a reputable independent laboratory that shows it works. Don't call our membership ignorant or disrespectful just because they want more proof than just your word.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:37 AM   #28
Registered Member
 
IndyFetch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 627
Country: United States
Location: Indianapolis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeee View Post
I stand with what I said by personal experience, testing done independently by people actually using the device in fleet applications. School Districts, Law Enforcement fleets, NYC Taxi, Metropolitan waste disposal fleets, Municipal Transit buses...
Which municipalities and/or fleets? I cannot imagine a fleet manager or budget committee approving the use of unproven devices in their vehicles, especially not knowing the long-term ramifications.

Sorry, but I have a skeptic's mind.

One last thought:
Jay2TheRescue, BEEF, R.I.D.E., and theholycow are 4 of the most knowledgable, well-respected members of this site. They have a history of being fair and cutting through the B.S. This thread seems to fall into that category.
IndyFetch is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:59 AM   #29
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Its good that you mention fleet managers. Back when I was younger I used to volunteer at my local rescue squad. I had filled many administrative offices in the squad over the years including serving as the squad's fleet officer (2nd Lt.), and sitting on the Board of Directors. As the fleet officer I was in charge of the stocking and maintenance of a fleet of 8 vehicles, ranging from an S-10 Blazer to an International DT 4700. If I were to install these devices on the trucks I would have had to have data to justify the cost, and prove that the device was not damaging the vehicle in the process. People's lives depended on those vehicles.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline  
Old 01-11-2010, 12:13 AM   #30
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Country: United States
Well.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEF View Post
you talk of matching wits and positions of ignorance. interestingly enough, you expect us to go by your words alone and reject the words of people that have tested this product (the EPA) and have said the opposite of you.

I would burn $5 to prove you wrong, I would burn $20 to prove you wrong, but you are talking about $60 for the refill. I would assume that the device itself would be much more than the refill cost. also, you have already once stated that someone that has tested this product and not gotten results must have tested it wrong so if I did take you up on it and test this product without any positive results, I feel that you would take the same position with me (or anyone else that tried)

extrordinary claimes require extrordinary evidence. a $60 investment to achieve $700 in savings. that's over 1000% profit. those numbers require some sort of evidence to back them up.

I think, in the end, it is funny that you continue to post pretty much the same responses to people. they are ignorant of the truth (that only you seem to know) and they are biased by their ignorance to keep the truth hidden to make themselves feel better.
ironically, you are selling the products talked about....which side has the bias again????
I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is in offering a skeptics trial package. Inquire at the site as I feel this forum is for an honest expression of experience.
The testing for these products is validated time and time again throughout their marketing history. Many skeptics converted and many remain, usually without taking steps to personally validate. Buy one try one, doesn't meet your criteria, get your money back. Do you, can you, will you, would you do the same in your business? We can we do we will, In the nearly 100,000 sold individuallylast year we had requests for 3 refunds. we did that. Fleet and corporate sales for that same time period have zero requests for return/refund.

Director of Bureau for Transportation:

Ing. Stanislav Hanzl

UVMV: LABORATORY FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Car Emission Testing
Protocol No.: 525.042/93 Car No. 2.
Vehicle Type: SKODA Forman 135 L with catalytic Platinum Gassava
Body No. N 0472246 Odometer Reading: 50,873 Ka
Engine No. 1473351 Tires: Barum 165/70 R 13
Manufacturer: Skoda, ML. Boleslav Carburetor: Jikov 28-30 LEKR Type: S 781.135
Measuring Equipment:

Tests were done on the Schenck 364/GS 56 Cylindrical dynamometer with additional balance wheels
The Beckman 864 & 865 infrared analyzers measured CO and C02
The Beckman 951 chemiluminescence analyzer measured NOx.
The Fid Scott 116 analyzer measured hydrocarbons.
The CVS Scott 302 (with System PDP) measured the amount of diluting air in the gas collection equipment
Test Type I - Driving Test EHK:

Base line testing done at 50,873 kilometer reading. Platinum Gasaver installed immediately after this Base Line measurement,

Final Test done after 9,6O9 kilometers (to-confirm that each vial of Platinum Gasaver concentrate would last the l0,000 kilometers guaranteed by the manufacturer). Odometer reading 60,482
CONCLUSION:

To meet the ERK-83-B Regulation for pollution controls the maximum permitted pollutants per test are: 45 grams CO, 6 grams NOx, and 15 grams HC & NOx combined,

(With 19.1 grams of CO, 5.2 grams of NOx, and 10.23 grams of HC and NOx combined, it is obvious that the tested vehicle's results were far below the maximum values emitted. CO was reduced by 67%,NOx by 22%, and HC by 54%.)

This protocol is for your technical information only.

Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC 29 June 1993

Ing. LADISLAV KROBL9 CSc Ing. Ivan Dvoracek

Director: Engine Department Director: Emission Testing
__________________

Popeee is offline  
Closed Thread

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
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
What is this stat? cavale Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 09-03-2008 08:23 AM
total fuel cost for fill-up instead of price per gallon EmptyH Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 08-26-2008 12:14 PM
"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 05:31 AM.


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