The Subaru SVX World Network

The Subaru SVX World Network (https://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/index.php)
-   General SVX Babble (https://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Any info on this? (https://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38346)

dannmarr 04-09-2007 08:59 PM
Any info on this?
 
http://www.freefuelsaver.com/affilia...tech/index.asp

Ron Mummert 04-09-2007 09:43 PM
Another "guaranteed" product brought to you by Nigerian Engineering.

Even Ripimoff Industries would cringe.


Ron.

ensteele 04-09-2007 11:32 PM
Ron, I need a case of those. :rolleyes: ;) :) :)

RSVX 04-10-2007 10:10 AM
Snake Oil.

AlcyoneDaze 04-10-2007 11:16 AM
Internal combustion is already 99% efficient - that leaves a 'possible' 1% room for improvement, not 30-50%. Whoever buys one of these, or the Tornado, or that pill that goes in the fuel tank gets what they deserve

RSVX 04-10-2007 12:21 PM
My Fav part is....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Oil
That's only half of it

We told you this vapor was injected into the intake manifold. To be more specific, we install the Fuel Atomizer 2000 in the PCV line . The hydro-carbons and emissions that normally pass through the PCV valve to be re-burned are collected in the sludge chamber of the Fuel Atomizer 2000. Some members found this to help them pass the emissions test whereas otherwise they would not.

richardstanley 04-10-2007 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlcyoneDaze
Internal combustion is already 99% efficient - that leaves a 'possible' 1% room for improvement, not 30-50%. Whoever buys one of these, or the Tornado, or that pill that goes in the fuel tank gets what they deserve
99% efficient? I think my physics prof. would disagree

Ricochet 04-10-2007 01:22 PM
http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/show...ular+mechanics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
We've tested nowhere near all of the fuel-saver gadgets on the market, and I'm sure purveyors of others will be waiting in our lobby soon. But not one of the items we tested worked. At all. There's no ignoring the laws of physics, people. Your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. Less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. Even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete, the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism.
Checkmate.

joburnet 04-10-2007 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardstanley
99% efficient? I think my physics prof. would disagree
The actual burning of fuel is 99% efficient, there are substantial losses from engine friction, driveline friction, ect....

Pure_Insanity8 04-11-2007 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joburnet
The actual burning of fuel is 99% efficient, there are substantial losses from engine friction, driveline friction, ect....
IC engines are on average around 20% efficient. Why else do you think vehicles need cooling systems? Most energy from combustion is lost through radiated heat. Even under optimal conditions (like one set rpm with no throttle plate and cams ground to take best advantage of that engine speed) an engine would be lucky to see much over 50% efficiency. Friction losses are taken out of the 20% or so that actually is converted to useable work.

Volumetric efficiencies can get over 100%... but that is something completed different.:)

Trevor 04-11-2007 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Mummert
Another "guaranteed" product brought to you by Nigerian Engineering.

Even Ripimoff Industries would cringe.

Ron.
Ron, let's put in a couple of cents and establish, Buggers and Farts Inc., purveyors of all good bovine manure. :confused: All orders to include one extra complimentary box of the best very best placebo on the planet. ;)

Blowing off -------:eek:

vitod 04-12-2007 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure_Insanity8
IC engines are on average around 20% efficient. Why else do you think vehicles need cooling systems? Most energy from combustion is lost through radiated heat. Even under optimal conditions (like one set rpm with no throttle plate and cams ground to take best advantage of that engine speed) an engine would be lucky to see much over 50% efficiency. Friction losses are taken out of the 20% or so that actually is converted to useable work.

Volumetric efficiencies can get over 100%... but that is something completed different.:)
So based on your statement, it could work.

NikFu S. 04-12-2007 05:13 PM
It can't because nothing you add to your fuel or air is going to make use of the radiated heat or prevent radiated heat.

What would work is a block made out of an indestructable material that deflects heat rather than absorb it.

joburnet 04-12-2007 05:45 PM
I think he was referencing dumb and dumber. So your sayin there's a chance!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122