I didn't realize that the refill only lasted for 10,000km (6213.711 miles)
with some quick calculations:
x $2.75 per gallon
that is roughly how much it costs me to go the 10,000 km that the refill lasts. the refill is $60 (according to this thread)
- $60 (cost of refill)
= $428.22015 (the cost just to break even)
/ $2.75 per gallon
= 155.7164181818... (number of gallons it should take to go that far)
6213.711 (10,000 km)
/ 155.7164181818 (number from above)
= 39.904019... (mileage just to break even on refill)
so in order to break even on your product's refill, I have to increase my mileage almost 5mpg on average. I really can't see that happening. also, that doesn't take into account the cost of having it professionally installed (as per your own admission) and if I were to give it a nonbiased assesment, I would have to consider the actual start up cost $248 for a pair (why would you sell them as a pair?) which increases the start up cost from $60 to $124 assuming it comes with the first charge of platinum.
it was also stated that it takes quite some time before the product actually "kicks in" which also needs to be taken into account.
my mileage would have to increase by 10-15% just to break even on your product (the percentage goes down as the product is used and the startup is absorbed) so it claims 20% increase (which has yet to be proven) and honestly my time itself it worth more than the 5% that I would gain if the product works as advertized.
also, you state things from prague and figures are in km instead of miles, where do you live? there are thing that you can get away with elsewhere in the world that will not fly in the US.
as far as your gracious offer for me to try it for free, I respectfully decline. if you are wondering why, I will simply quote myself on this one.
Originally Posted by BEEF
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)
if my math is incorrect on this one, someone please let me know. I had a long night last night and the best I can figure, it is right but my level of coherency is pretty low right now.
Be the change you wish to see in the world
Wow. A 16-year-old test consisting of a single (is it really carburetor-equipped?!?) vehicle not available in the U.S. I find this unconvincing.
In statistics, I learned that it takes 387 samples to create an accurate survey or study. Since there are not 387 TYPES of vehicles, I would understand having 10% of that. No vehicles have been sold in the U.S. with a carburetor since 1994, and only 2 were available in 1993. Testing should be conducted using modern U.S.-market vehicles with fuel injection.
That Skoda is a vehicle built to 1993 emissions standards. Furthermore, the vehicle is built to European emissions standards.
Someone could put a sock in the tailpipe of a carbureted vehicle and clean up the emissions somewhat.
<snip> 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. <snip>
Not a good comparison...all these devices and technologies had many different people working on them, competing to bring them to fruition, and to develop and improve them. 20 years after each one of the aforementioned items first appeared on the scene, they were mainstream products, produced by multiple competing manufacturers. This does not appear to be the case with your fuel saver catalyst. Why not? If it worked, there would be many different versions of this on the market, and we could purchase it at WalMart.
__________________ "We are forces of chaos and anarchy. Everything they say we are we are, and we are very proud of ourselves!" -- Jefferson Airplane
Dick Naugle says: 1. Prepare food fresh. 2. Serve customers fast. 3. Keep place clean.
While looking up the platinum fuel saver on Google I found this post, and decided to clarify a few things. I actually own HHO Tek which is the worldwide distributor for the platinum fuel saver. There were a number of very good questions regarding the validity of our system.
I can easily tell you all day long that it does in fact work but short of your guys seeing it for yourself you will never truly believe because there is so much junk out there. So I will simply present you with some articles that have been written about the system.
The following article was done by JP magazine without us even knowing it, I just stumbled across it one day on the internet. http://hhotek.com/jpmag.php
This is a link to my blog and it has numerous articles on it granted they are biased because I chose them to use but they do show that it does in fact do what we say. http://hhotek.com/blog/
This is a test that we conducted and it is very transparent and detailed, there is enough data there that you can calculate the number anyway you choose and still get the same results. I even took pictures of the odometer and scanned fuel receipts. http://hhotek.com/focus.php
We have made some changes to the company that has allowed us to lower the price of the system from $239 to $199 which makes it far more affordable. One $199 system is good for 30,000 miles, it includes 5 refills that are good for 6,000 miles each. The average customer will save anywhere from $600-$1800 per system depending on their current fuel mileage.
And we've tried to remove the water 4 gas banner, but it keeps showing up on the templates again after we remove it... I haven't had the time required to sift through all the code on the site to find out why it keeps coming back.
Yes they are referring to the same device. However the tests were done immediately after the system was installed and it can take up to 1000 miles to start seeing the full results. The system causes all the excess carbon to be burned and until that carbon is burned off the system does not provide any fuel savings. Consumer reports did the same exact test and found the exact same results. It was a test setup for failure. There are numerous other tests that have been done, even a federal investigation conducted to the point that the product was not sold for over a year. After that court case was over the inventor of the system was issued a check for $27,000 to cover legal expenses. and the residing judge said the following "The Platinum Fuel Saver device is an effective fuel saving device and purchasers will in fact be receiving what they bargained for. " This result came from a test on 2 separate fleets that both had more than 10 vehicles each, i don't remember the exact number. but the average showed a 28.8% average increase. These tests were independent and approved for use in a federal court case.
The bottom line is the system does in fact work, since we took over we have sold well over 100,000 units and have had 6 refunds in the past 6 months. For a product that doesn't work that is very good ratio. The reality is it does work thats why cabs, buses, trains, ships, even lawn mowers are using it all over the world. We are also recommended by a couple fleet analysis companies for use in their customers fleets.
The fact is im not asking you guys to believe me, i saying put it to the test! We offer a 90 day money back guarantee. HHO Tek has been around for almost 4 years now and for a company that sells a product that supposedly doesn't work i would assume that there should be someone out there that has something negative to say about us, but there isn't we have tons of happy customers that repeatedly come back and refer family members to us.
PS I did not initiate this thread and it is quite old as i stated before i stumbled across while doing some seo work on my site. I am not attempting to spam this forum in any way. My product is the topic and i have simply came here to shed some light on what we do and how.
PSS regarding the W4G banner check line 55-56, thats where your problem is.
<a href="http://riskassets.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/" target="_blank" title="Double Your Mileage"><img border="0" src="http://www.gassavers.org/images/custom/ads/banner1.gif"></a></div>
Show us the results of an independent study, hosted on a site non-affiliated with you.
And if the tests were done improperly and a court determined so and refunded the costs, where is the report that says so?
And yes, you can see real results from any number of placebo "fuel savers" merely because they induce a more fuel effecient driving style.
None of the science of what you're doing works. That is some incredibly deceptive and logical fallacy filled "testing" you did in regards to the "unburnt fuel" in the epa tests.
And seriously, why would you have to run 1000 miles before you see any effect on fuel efficiency?
What is with that idiotic mindset? Are you honestly saying it takes over 1000 miles for the O2 sensor to detect that there is too much fuel being injected into the cylinders? Or are you trying to say that it takes over 1000 miles for the fuel injectors to respond to the O2 sensors detection of the excess of necessary fuel? Or does it take over 1000 miles to heat up your catalyst to the point at which it will do its job?
It can't be anything but those 3. There is absolutely NO OTHER WAY that a car can adjust the input of fuel from the injectors. You would have to re-write the computer code to have any other effect. The O2 sensor detects excess fuel, and the injectors respond by injecting less. Near instantaneous. Why on earth would it take over 1000 miles to see any effect at all?
Bottom line is, I call bull, and you can't get me to spend money on snake oil.
Send me one for free, and I'll test it happily. I put on over 1000 miles a month, so you'd hear from me swiftly.
So if you're so confident, and are selling so much, you can surely afford to take a 00.0001% loss.
I'll happily tell these guys here your crap works, if you have the confidence to send it to a skeptic (and a skeptic who already drives in a fuel efficient manner, so there isn't placebo going to occur.)
the reason it takes a little while to start working is because the platinum removes the carbon buildup from the motor. So if you have a brand new motor no wait, if you have a93 chevy pickup with 200,000 miles you might have a little carbon buildup so you will have to wait. Why? Because the platinum will be used for removing the carbon, until the carbon is gone it will not be helping fuel mileage.
Another little tidbit for you: The platinum fuel saver also will more than double oil change intervals, we have numerous consecutive tests running right now. The tests are so far showing that at around 5000-6000 we have 40% of oil life left and the really interesting thing is at 9000 and even 11,000 (we have 1 test vehicle, ford focus at 11,000 now another a chevy 1500 at 9,000 those are the highest mileage test vehicles right now) the oil is still testing at 40% left. The reason for this is the system reduces the amount of contaminants that enter the oil. Fuel and carbon are the number one oil killer, antifreeze and others still exist and we cant help those but removing the unburnt fuel and carbon from the oil is extending the life of the oil dramatically.
For our fleet accounts we provide 1 free oil sample analysis with each platinum fuel saver they buy so they can verify this.