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! Quote:
------ 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? |
Quote:
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 Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
A good thing to keep in mind about anecdotal (testimonial) evidence.... Anecdotal evidence isn't. Quote:
------ Quote:
------- 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. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.