It is an indication only. This car has a carb. An EFI setup might do better.

He's admitting that he's one such bad scientist and lousy experimenter who only asks people that agree with him to test his "stuff."

No Worries :p

But to keep to the matter at hand ;)
Adding mothballs to a car's fuel tank isn't a new idea by any means ;)

------
In any case, I am always weary of claims that at some point go off into oil company conspiracy theories - I've yet to read a respectable academic journal with an abstract that talked about some sort of evil conspiracy theory :p If it was such a big deal, you could make a killing setting up shop in a different country :p

You don't know what you know until you know it.

Ignorance is it's own reward.

Much if not most academic research is funded by corporate interests and/or by the govt which is mostly controlled by corporate interests.

Corporations do not usually encourage conspiracy theories about themselves...unless they have some ulterior motive?

The conspiracy may be so large and all encompassing that you can't comprehend it? Think about the "matrix" you were raised within. Have you ever stepped away from it?

"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...... Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more...."Morpheus-The Matrix.

Please....take the red pill.

Not the red one! Never take the red one! Don't EVER take the red pill!

.....

The Necessary Embrace of Conspiracy

by Robert Shetterly

........................

................. In my talk on Martha’s Vineyard I spoke about William Pepper’s book, An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, Jr. Pepper had been James Earl Ray’s lawyer. Ray was the man convicted of killing King. But both Pepper and the King family were convinced that Ray was innocent. The King family hired Pepper to represent them in a suit; they asked only $100.00 in damages to clear Ray’s name. Before the trial came to court in 1999, Ray had died in prison. The jury determined that King had been assassinated by a conspiracy involving the Memphis police, the Mafia, the FBI, and the Special Forces of the U.S. Army. Ray, the patsy, had left town before the shot was fired. Pepper had confessions from people involved from each of the organizations named. The verdict was barely mentioned in the U.S. media then and is not mentioned every year on the anniversary of his death. Why?

After my talk on Martha’s Vineyard a man came up to me and said, “I enjoyed your speech and was with you until you started that conspiracy stuff about MLK, Jr.” I said, “That’s not conspiracy. What I told you are facts.” End of conversation.

I think we’re confronted with two conspiracies here: one to commit the crime, the other to ignore it even when the facts are known. ( Two sides of the same coin.) The man who accused me of slipping into the neurotic, aliens-are-among-us land of conspiracy nuts was unable to hear the evidence, perhaps because he was so utterly convinced by our government and media that conspiracies don’t exist, people who espouse them are dangerous fruitcakes, and if you begin to think like that, your whole house of cards wobbles then topples. Who wants that? Better a standing tower of marked cards, than having to admit the game is rigged and the ground is shaking.

America is steeped in conspiracy, and even more steeped in propaganda that discredits those who try to expose the conspiracies. Whether we’re talking about MLK, Jr., JFK, RFK, Iran-Contra, 9/11, or, most importantly, the status quo, anyone who works to uncover the truth is branded a “conspiracy nut” and discredited before any evidence has a fair hearing. The government/corporate/media version is THE VERSION. Anything else is illusory.

In fact, the cultural success of labeling investigative reporters and forensic historians, and, simply, anyone who tries to name reality, “conspiracy nuts” is perhaps the most successful conspiracy of our time. Well, not the most successful. That prize goes to the conspiracy to give corporations all the rights of individual persons under our Constitution. That conspiracy has codified and consolidated corporate power so that it controls our lives in almost every meaningful way. It controls the election funds of our candidates, and them once they are in office. It controls our major media including public broadcasting. It controls the content of our television programming. It controls how are tax dollars are spent making sure that the richest get the most welfare. It controls the laws, the courts, the prison system and the mind numbing propaganda that we are the greatest democracy on earth. It controls the values with which we raise our children. It controls our ability to dispense justice. It controls how we treat nature, how we deface our land with strip malls, and blow the tops off our mountains — a form of corporate free speech. It dictates our modes of transportation. It controls our inability to respond to true crises like climate change. It attempts to create a spiritual deficiency in every person that can be filled and healed only with stuff — and no stuff is ever enough.

As Richard Grossman puts it, “Isn’t it an old story? People create what looks to be a nifty machine, a robot, called the corporation. Over time, the robots get together and overpower the people. … For a century, the robots propagandize and indoctrinate each generation of people so they grow up believing that robots are people too, gifts from God and Mother Nature; that they are inevitable and the source of all that is good. How odd that we have been so gullible, so docile, obedient.”

https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/31/3521/

The thing I dislike most about your approach, zugy, is how condescending it is...Do you really believe you're in some "ivory tower" of knowledge looking down on the rest of us or is that just how everything you say sounds?

:p

With respect to conspiracy theories and theorists, this is the biggest misconception I come across. As someone that has received funding from rather large corporations for research (we also get federal grants) - I can attest from my personal experience and the experience of colleagues that 99.9% of research results are not controlled by corporate interests (I reserve the .1 for the possibility).

Why?

Because academia is a global entity. Results are peer reviewed on a global scale. So if you were to publish results with corporate interests, someone else is going to figure this out quickly and you'll quickly find yourself in a non credible position.

This is why I say the opposite will work.... If there is such a big conspiracy to withhold in the united states due to oil companies... Start marketing in another country - you'll make a killing.

-------
And the independent analysis that is not connected to any money whatsoever? Did you catch my post on the WTC collapses?
Or how about the analysis of this product done by independent (not for any money at all) universities and placed on a dyno for testing by such an investigative reporter?


The problem with the small "hard core" conspiracy subculture is that when you think everyone else will tell you a lie - what makes you holier than thou not to?

--------
IN ANY CASE
None of that changes the facts:
Bioperformance claims it's not Naphthalene and that ovens destroy their product
Two universities test with a mass spectrometer - don't use an oven - find it to be Naphthalene
Bioperformance claims an increase in FE
Several investigative journalists actually test - at least one uses a dyno on a a car that testimony claimed it works on... Didn't work
Bioperformance claims it's non toxic and non flammable
It is - and the fumes are highly flammable

It's not a conspiracy, it's been tested by people and credible labs not related to even the possibility of corporate or government hoohaa.



-------
On a very unrelated note:
You know, Afghanistan has 11 letters in it... Coincidence?

Bottom line? I just believe....and I have experienced in some cases that there are various technical methods to increase mpg.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...my-growth.html

Studies by the National Academies of Science (NAS), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) all show that existing technology can easily improve fuel economy by 4% per year (to 34 mpg by 2017), as the president proposed, while providing the same acceleration, the same size, and the same or even improved safety compared to vehicles sold today.

In other words, we have the technology to make a 41 mpg family car, a 37 mpg minivan, a 34 mpg mid-sized SUV, and a 30 mpg pickup.

This is a statement by hopefully rational scientists.

This is in contrast to the tendency on this forum to deny and ridicule these methods.

Who is resisting the higher CAFE standards...the corporations.

Best bet for myself is to just to quit arguing about it and go ahead and do it I guess. No point in arguing the obvious.

But you see, the UCS scientists isn't using your methods as a basis for saying FE can be increased, so you can't use them to say that your ideas have merit, since the two statements are completely unrelated.

I've improved my fuel economy a great deal simply by driving differently...I don't doubt it can improve, it's just that none of the **** I have put in my tank or strapped to my fuel lines or wrapped around my o2 has ever done anything...

No, it's actually what this forum has said consistently. We know that optimized design yields better FE. As SVO said, it's different methods than the believed methods:

Note the chart with comparisons to other countries.... With Kei class in japan, overall smaller vehicle design in EU etc. While it does show a country - country comparison, it is a bit misleading to say "same size" and 'look at this county' for an example :p

In any case - here's one such report.... Not a mention of fuel additives, but - there is a citation to an oil additive tested by Toyota yielding a 2.7% benefit in consumption....
https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172

Some other methods (and where they came from) to reduce fuel consumption as cited as references to that report:
*Volkswagen: 11% increase in FE by switching from a 1.6L I4 4V engine to a 1.4L I4 2V engine
*Ford: Switching from a OHV to SOHC with less valve train mass, 2V per cylinder and higher CR yields 11% increase in torque, 28% increase in power and 4.5% reduction in consumption
*Honda/Nissan: Closing intake valve early yields 7% increase in thermal efficiency
*Honda: 3 stage vtec variant increased power 40% without reducing fuel consumption
*SAE: CVT - 9.3% reduction
*SAE: Aggressive shift logic tested on a 5 speed auto - 9%+ reduction

Now, Mothballs in gas tank... that wasn't on the reference list ;)

-------
All that said - always feel free to believe what you want ;) I personally won't believe in anything - I'll draw conclusions from data. Exceptional claims better come with extra ordinary evidence ;) I don't want my auto manufacture to explain to me that they believe their frame won't fall apart - I want them to explain why their engineering and testing shows their frame won't fall apart :D