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 :p).

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

The irony! I guessed what it was by scent alone :p

------
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: https://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Dir...entral_Florida

https://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. "

If you fully read....

https://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 :thumbup: 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 :p
https://www.fuelsaving.info/bioperformance.htm

I wonder if I should sticky this...

Very good work! :thumbup:

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

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.

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.

One tank isn't "good" science either.

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.

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 ;)

------

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 :p But that being said -- it didn't work then either :p

-------
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" :p

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 :thumbup:

Not to trample a dead horse or anything, but......

https://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.


https://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.

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