Platinum Fuel Saver - Page 6 - Fuelly Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:21 AM   #51
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Country: United States
the initial "conditioning" is varies greatly. i said i have seen as much as 1800 the original inventor always stated 2000 just to be safe, most vehicles take far less. At 1200 miles if the JP mag jeep was only getting 2 mpg it was not fully conditioned, we always see results greater than that.

Cars do not emit more than 20% of the wasted fuel, that is the job of the catalytic converter. Just because the vehicle only emits 5% from the exhaust doesnt mean the cat did not remove an additional 20%.

Hopefully the admin that control this board will decide to partake in a test and hopefully that will be proof enough for you guys. I mean i could use customer testimonials but honestly those mean absolutely nothing they could be real genuine testimonials or they cuold have been written by a writer there is no way to prove that thats why we never use them.

Also have you had a chance to check out our test focus page? That test is as transparent as one could be. We had about 700 lbs in the car including me and Don also had 750 watt inverter running and were running 75+ and we still averaged over 31 MPG which is higher than the epa test say the car should get under the best of conditions.

Another thing take a look at the video we did during a live radio remote, in the video we reduced hydrocarbons and co2 dramatically in just minutes.

theclencher, yes we used to deal in hydrogen systems. Hydrogen systems do work but are very expensive to do right and require extensive computer programming to work properly. It may serve you to check out the following.

http://hhotek.com/hhofacts.php
http://hhotek.com/blog/green-news/run-car-water-true/
__________________

HHO Tek-Trevor is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 03:55 AM   #52
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Give it up fool.

Only thing you have that's worthy of more than 2 seconds of consideration are the h- h- hos.
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 05:03 AM   #53
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 136
Country: United States
Why not at least cut him some slack.. Sure, I do not believe it is going to work, but if he is willing to give the site a FREE UNIT to independently test on one of our members cars, then he is obviously willing to stand behind his product. That is much more than I can say about the "Hull Effect" guy, or the fuel additive people that have come on the site. So as long as he actually follows through and sends a unit to test, what until the "test" fails and then flame him and kick him to the curb... lol
__________________
ben98gs is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 08:39 AM   #54
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben98gs View Post
Why not at least cut him some slack.. Sure, I do not believe it is going to work, but if he is willing to give the site a FREE UNIT to independently test on one of our members cars, then he is obviously willing to stand behind his product. That is much more than I can say about the "Hull Effect" guy, or the fuel additive people that have come on the site. So as long as he actually follows through and sends a unit to test, what until the "test" fails and then flame him and kick him to the curb... lol
Of course im willing to give one to someone from this site in order to validate my system. I give away one and its proven to your guys and alot of you will become lifelong customers and so will your brothers, sisters, mom and dad. Before we started advertising on the radio word of mouth was our number one form of advertising. As long as the person testing maintains the same type of driving habits and is willing to give it a honest run they WILL see results. If they hypermile now and then install my system and drive flat footed then of course its not going to show gains but if they give it an honest run it will work out.
HHO Tek-Trevor is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 09:22 AM   #55
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,027
Country: United States
I agree that a test is in order. The only way to truely test is to do a blind test.

The device should be installed on the test car by a neutral third party. The third party checks the device once per week. Some weeks, the device may be activated, other weeks it is non-functional. The driver fills up every week and posts the results, the third party then reveals during which weeks the device was "on". This would reduce the tendency of the driver to subconsciously drive differently when the unit was installed.

Or- someone just needs to sneak this device onto their spouse's car and tell them nothing.
GasSavers_Erik is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 09:24 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 278
Country: United States
Location: CT
That ford focus test doesn't really validate anything. My dad's car regularly gets 35mpg, by just doing the speed limit on his 30 mile daily commute.

First off, the modern EPA tests do not run in the "ideal" condition of the former EPA tests. They run AC on, High speed, higher acceleration, and all that stuff to simulate more real world driving conditions. The "old" epa ratings were 24-31, but the "new" ratings (With the less than "ideal" conditions) are merely 23 city 30 highway.

The fact that the car got the EPA highway mileage on a steady, long, and very consistent highway trip? (Which is in honesty, better conditions then the modern EPA tests) Wonderful! The car works the way it should.

Your water injection system seems to have helped restore it to original performance.

I really want to see an independant study with more than one vehicle that confirms your 20% claims. Heck, even if the driving conditions for the "previous best highway mpg" of 27, and the trip with 31.9mpg were the same (I highly doubt that, because you really can't get more ideal conditions for mpg than a 1000+ mile road trip), it's still not 20%

Both claims you've shown us (only one from a third party), show less than the "20% average" you claim. Where are the other third party tests (hosted off your site) that show more than 20% gains, to validate the claim of 20% average?



And you still haven't answered my big question:

How does the O2 sensor in a functional vehicle NOT detect the unburnt fuel?
Wyldesoul is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 09:39 AM   #57
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro View Post


And you still haven't answered my big question:

How does the O2 sensor in a functional vehicle NOT detect the unburnt fuel?
the o2 sensor does detect the unburnt fuel thats its purpose, on some vehicles the system will start showing gains and then the gains will drop because the o2 thinks its too lean and it will add more fuel so at that point you reset the computer so that it will learn the new fuel curve. So far that reset has worked on everything except a couple italians. GM vehicles are the most prone to needing a reset.

The ford focus test, the car got terrible mileage before and i assure you with me driving the way i drive was the absolute farthest from ideal conditions you could possibly ever get, on a number of occasions i was running over 90 (the focus got a little hairy over 100) if you calculate the time you will see that some very high speeds had to be held, i mean we averaged 57 MPH over 17 hours, try to do that and see what kind of average running speed you have to maintain.
HHO Tek-Trevor is offline  
Old 06-17-2010, 10:37 AM   #58
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik View Post
I agree that a test is in order. The only way to truely test is to do a blind test.

The device should be installed on the test car by a neutral third party. The third party checks the device once per week. Some weeks, the device may be activated, other weeks it is non-functional. The driver fills up every week and posts the results, the third party then reveals during which weeks the device was "on". This would reduce the tendency of the driver to subconsciously drive differently when the unit was installed.
This sounds like a decent idea. I was trying to figure out how we'd deal with that issue if we did play along.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:21 AM   #59
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Country: United States
this is very simple you find someone on here that drives the same route everyday for 100 miles or so and for 1 week they do exactly what i did with the focus take a picture of the odometer before fillup and after and scan fuel receipts. then install the system run for 1000 miles and then do the exact same thing for 1 week. This will give us a fairly good time line to judge driving habits from and fuel usage. If they drive an average speed of 45 before and an average of 80 after then we know they intended to blow the test. but as long as the everything averages out fairly then the second test will show good results.

There may be another way to do this but i do not know of it right now.
HHO Tek-Trevor is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 03:04 PM   #60
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
I think we should just go with JP Magazine's rigorous and scientifically proven valid testing. That several variables were changed during the course of the "test" shouldn't matter any...
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher 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 02:58 PM.


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