flatback90 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 was working on a mates landrover the other day and he mentioned this new thing by greenfoot global, a tablet that you put in your tank that gives you 50% more economy/power less emissions etc etc, read the site and thought oooh snake oil and ive just listened to there "webinar" where it basically seem like a pyramid scam. anyhoo below is the text from the home page anyone want to point out how many things are wrong/****e/contradictory????? actualy the real reason i put this here is because there are some people on here much more cleverer than me and i want to go back to him and counter each and every point he puts forward! ta! EnviroTabs® is an organometallic metal conditioner that acts as a burn rate modifier which catalyzes fuel. This action allows more of the fuel to burn in the power stroke of the engine and therefore less fuel burns in the exhaust stroke. EnviroTabs® simultaneously improves fuel economy, increases power and reduces emissions by creating a micro-thin coating in the combustion chamber of your engine which allows fuel to burn quicker. EnviroTabs® burns off carbon deposits and catalytically causes a chemical reaction to happen at a lower temperature. The fuel particles begin to combust at temperatures as low as 200º C, as opposed to 600° C. This chemical reaction allows the impurities and the hard carbon deposits to completely burn off. EnviroTabs® changes the surface heat absorption characteristics of metal. Note: The greatest loss in efficiency in an automobile engine is the loss of heat. Heat is energy released by the mixture of fuel and air; which produces a heat spike, which creates expansion used to power the vehicle. The cylinder walls and head are water cooled, and the pistons are oil cooled. The thin coating inhibits the transfer of radiant heat. This means higher combustion temperature, greater expansion and more power with reduced emissions. By increasing the burn in the combustion chamber (rather than as after-burn) performance can be increased while reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Heat recovery is the single best method that can reduce harmful emissions, increase fuel economy, improve engine performance and extend oil and engine life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range Rover Blues Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Sounds too good to be true. I like the bit where lowering the burn temp to say 200 degrees allows you to burn off more carbon and increase efficiency, when normally it;s the opposite that's true. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but I'd want independant proof. The reason I say that? during the 1940s we shipped Spitfires and Hurricanes with Rolls ROyce engines to Russia, in the uk they ran on the highest octane fuel, perhaps 5 star say but in Russia they didn't have access to it. What they did instead is add a fual caalyst, it contained tin and other stuff and lowered the burn temp which had the effect of protecting the valves. It also had a similar effect on engine knock as tetra-methyl lead. In the 1990s as lead was withdrawn from fuel this "technology" resurfaced and several companies started selling fuel catalysts that either dropped into the tank or sat in the fuel line. Either way I recall they need to be in the presence of some steel, say a steel mesh or steel tank. One of the most well-known in the classic scene was Black Cat, though I have used others. These have had a positive effect on older engines, prolonging their life or allowing them to run on low-octane fuel. I would not claim however that they will make a 30 year old car do 50+MPG, that is quite clearly tosh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landmannnn Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Some of my colleagues have been trying this in lorries. Still going with the trial but it seems to be giving between 2% and 5% improvement in mpg. Not a huge saving but if you do very high mileage there is a payback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Some of my colleagues have been trying this in lorries. Still going with the trial but it seems to be giving between 2% and 5% improvement in mpg. Not a huge saving but if you do very high mileage there is a payback. Not any saving at all given it's not a blind test and it's well within the bounds of error, this sort of thing is what they rely on to shift this snake-oil stuff you know it's in your vehicle so you drive differently because you believe there is a difference. My car gets 5% better MPG when I wash it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 My car gets 5% better MPG when I wash it How would you know you wash your truck as often as I do once a year at MOT time. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Not any saving at all given it's not a blind test and it's well within the bounds of error, this sort of thing is what they rely on to shift this snake-oil stuff you know it's in your vehicle so you drive differently because you believe there is a difference. My car gets 5% better MPG when I wash it Thats the weight saving effect of removing mud crud and crisp packets Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffR Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 You mean people wash their trucks? Better to wait till the crud reaches a thickness at which it falls off, gotta save water you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Sounds too good to be true. I like the bit where lowering the burn temp to say 200 degrees allows you to burn off more carbon and increase efficiency, when normally it;s the opposite that's true. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but I'd want independant proof. The reason I say that? during the 1940s we shipped Spitfires and Hurricanes with Rolls ROyce engines to Russia, in the uk they ran on the highest octane fuel, perhaps 5 star say but in Russia they didn't have access to it. What they did instead is add a fual caalyst, it contained tin and other stuff and lowered the burn temp which had the effect of protecting the valves. It also had a similar effect on engine knock as tetra-methyl lead. In the 1990s as lead was withdrawn from fuel this "technology" resurfaced and several companies started selling fuel catalysts that either dropped into the tank or sat in the fuel line. Either way I recall they need to be in the presence of some steel, say a steel mesh or steel tank. One of the most well-known in the classic scene was Black Cat, though I have used others. These have had a positive effect on older engines, prolonging their life or allowing them to run on low-octane fuel. I would not claim however that they will make a 30 year old car do 50+MPG, that is quite clearly tosh. I remember this as well from the time, but there were also counter arguments that engines with valves/valve seats not suitable for unleaded petrol would run quite happily on leaded fuel for a significant period of time due to the coating already built up on the valves. So these may also have been snake oil, as in 'see it must be working as the engine is still working'. I also saw the references to Spitfires etc using these catalysts back in the '40s, however I only ever saw these in product literature.... never any other source.... in the 90's it was far harder for joe public to research claims made by sales people so you could make up this sort of thing and get away with it easily. This makes interesting reading as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firepower_International sounds like the same/similar product that turned out to be a sham Is it Snake oil? probably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonr Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 It's an irony that today I had an enquiry from a company who sell these Hydrogen generators who want some product development assistance in developing their own! They currently sell someone else's. As the chap was describing what it did - I had to go outside for a bit of 'fresh air' as I was struggling not to burst out laughing! We are having a 'technical' meeting tomorrow to discuss their specific requirements. I really don't know what I should do! I'll feel a bit guilty helping to propagate the idea - if it is as snake-oil-ish as most posts on the subject seem to suggest. On the other hand, it would be interesting to try to test it in a scientific manor. I was thinking about building something which randomly switches it on and off while monitoring mpg. That way, I won't know if it's operating or not at any given time. This should remove the effects of driving differently because I know it's operating. To give them some credit, they do not claim any significant improvement in mpg for it, but do claim a reduction in emissions and kind of elude to improvements in economy as a result. What do you think I should do? Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverik Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 It's an irony that today I had an enquiry from a company who sell these Hydrogen generators who want some product development assistance in developing their own! They currently sell someone else's. As the chap was describing what it did - I had to go outside for a bit of 'fresh air' as I was struggling not to burst out laughing! We are having a 'technical' meeting tomorrow to discuss their specific requirements. I really don't know what I should do! I'll feel a bit guilty helping to propagate the idea - if it is as snake-oil-ish as most posts on the subject seem to suggest. On the other hand, it would be interesting to try to test it in a scientific manor. I was thinking about building something which randomly switches it on and off while monitoring mpg. That way, I won't know if it's operating or not at any given time. This should remove the effects of driving differently because I know it's operating. To give them some credit, they do not claim any significant improvement in mpg for it, but do claim a reduction in emissions and kind of elude to improvements in economy as a result. What do you think I should do? Si Go for it, (if its not going to cost you!) I think it would be great to get someone practical that knows what they're doing (you) to look at it, I'd certainly be interested. I like the idea of a "random" tester type mechanism, but you'll need some way of recording when it was turned on and when it wasn't so looking back at the result can you say it was down to the "hydrogen machine" being switched on. Mav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 What do you think I should do? Si Make some money out of it . Seriously now... would it make more sense to have an engine dyno type thing, and run at say a constant RPM and monitor fuel use with and without the hydrogen generator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 He asked you to consult, consult, and give him the truth -if it's good news then great, bad then also great, I guess he wasn't "asking for proof it is true", unlike 2000 'scientists' and the whole climate change debate.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 As the chap was describing what it did - I had to go outside for a bit of 'fresh air' as I was struggling not to burst out laughing! :rofl: Run a forum sweepsatke as to how long into the meeting you have 'coffee on keyboard' moment Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 It's an irony that today I had an enquiry from a company who sell these Hydrogen generators who want some product development assistance in developing their own! They currently sell someone else's. As the chap was describing what it did - I had to go outside for a bit of 'fresh air' as I was struggling not to burst out laughing! We are having a 'technical' meeting tomorrow to discuss their specific requirements. I really don't know what I should do! I'll feel a bit guilty helping to propagate the idea - if it is as snake-oil-ish as most posts on the subject seem to suggest. On the other hand, it would be interesting to try to test it in a scientific manor. I was thinking about building something which randomly switches it on and off while monitoring mpg. That way, I won't know if it's operating or not at any given time. This should remove the effects of driving differently because I know it's operating. To give them some credit, they do not claim any significant improvement in mpg for it, but do claim a reduction in emissions and kind of elude to improvements in economy as a result. What do you think I should do? Si Surely you need them to supply evidence (with a repeatable test methodology) of how well the existing one they sell works so that you have design parameters to meet, at this point if they have none then that too will have to be costed in to the project or the entire job is a no go as you have no project goal. Of course if the idea is just a scam this should become self evident and I'd ensure there was a get out clause, don't let your good name get used by them to give credibility to a product that doesn't work. I'm sure you are well aware of all that though .... give it a go just so we know if it's cr4p or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonr Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 They are not looking for proof either way - that was just for my own benefit. If I can say (on somewhere like this) that I've tested it by this method and it has this benefit / detriment and this is my evidence - I'd feel a lot happier commenting on it. Most of the comments I've read are either from people who say it doesn't work, but have generally not tried it and it's just what they too have read, or from people selling systems who have a vested interest in telling you it's better than sliced bread. Some of the comments are from people who have a kit installed and think it gives them 200mpg and has cured their baldness - but to some extent I think they may be trying to justify spending £300 on an old jam-jar & some wires. Very little of what I can find is evidence based. Some sites start off quite well, but when you read on they go off on flights of pseudo scientific sounding fancy. These obviously appeal so the sector of the market who buy Spells and Mystic Cheese Talismans on eBay - but make everyone else think it's beefy! He should be round in an hour or so - so I'll keep you posted! As an aside, is it really any different to Propane injection? That claims to work in the same way by speeding up the propagation of the flame front burning a greater proportion of the fuel at high RPM. I tried Propane on a 200 Tdi and (taking into account the subjective nature of the testing) it appeared to work. The calorific value of the propane was insignificant to that of the diesel - but it appeared to increase my top speed on the same stretch of road by about 4mph (less than 10% - so maybe below the noise floor). Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrKev Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I wonder if it's the same guy I saw a couple of years ago... Mine was someone who was so confident in the system, that they even insisted that we bankroll the development and they let us have a % of the takings.... Easy decision, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 As an aside, is it really any different to Propane injection? If the jam-jar can generate a similar amount of hydrogen as is stored in a propane bottle then it may be feasible... seems a bit unlikely though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CwazyWabbit Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 If the jam-jar can generate a similar amount of hydrogen as is stored in a propane bottle then it may be feasible... seems a bit unlikely though. I was curious about that and whilst googling found this http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf Anyway interesting bit below.... 1000 Watt electrolyzer. This electrolyzer can produce 170 liters/hour (6 cubic feet/hour) of hydrogen and 85 liters/hour (3 cubic feet/hour) of oxygen (at standard temperature and pressure). Obviously this doesn't come for free as you have to remember the extra load on the electrical system will give the engine more work to do... anyone want to do the maths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejparrott Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 We used to have an toolmaker at work who worked in F1 donkeys years ago....apparently years ago F1 banned a process which was being experimented by one of the teams. That was water injection into the bores at some point or other on the stroke, probably the point of ignition or just before. The science was that the water was turned to steam, which expanded and gave the power of the steam expansion on top of the power from the fuel. I've not got any proof to show, and he's long retired now so I cant ask him again, but he was adamant that significant improvements in power resulted, to the extent that the governing body banned it as giving them an unfair advantage. As for the argument that goes along the lines of if it was that good we'd be using it now, I dont know how long ago it was, and it may simply be that todays engines are better than the experiment anyway, so its unecessary... Just thought I'd throw it in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Water injection is quite well proven & known about, it's featured on at least one production car - another one is misting water onto intercoolers which has been on production motors. Megasquirt can control water injection, there was a big thread about water injection on here for diesels a while back too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddy Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Test it on your freelander simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonr Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 There was once one of these magnetic fuel thingy salesmen at Billing and as my friends will testify, I got chatting to him and 'innocently' asked him if it would work on electric cars too - and he said it did! Didn't have an answer for where He should stick it! (on an eleccy car that is) Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguevogue Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Test it on your freelander simon Didn't they tell you not to mix water and electricity at school? [at this point I was going to insert a collection of smilies but they seem to have disappeared] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escape Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I was curious about that and whilst googling found this http://www.dangerous...2homesystem.pdf Anyway interesting bit below.... 1000 Watt electrolyzer. This electrolyzer can produce 170 liters/hour (6 cubic feet/hour) of hydrogen and 85 liters/hour (3 cubic feet/hour) of oxygen (at standard temperature and pressure). Obviously this doesn't come for free as you have to remember the extra load on the electrical system will give the engine more work to do... anyone want to do the maths? The extra load on the engine would be about 3 hp (1kW genereated with 50% efficiency and some added losses in the wiring). Water electrolisys requires 12.8 kJ/liter (286 kJ/mol), which means the electrolyser needs at least 2170 kJ/hour to produce the 170 liter. But it uses 3600 kJ/hour (1 kW x 3600 seconds), so it has an efficiency of about 60%, and an overal efficiency of 30% at maximum (each hp the engine can generate by complete burning of the hydrogen requires in excess of 3 hp to produce). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I'll offer testing time on an engine dyno for free in the interests of furthering this debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.