|
I admit to being slightly irritated at the resurrection of the previous thread and attempt at free advertising for a product which is irrefutably nothing less than a scam. OK, I'll add that IN MY OPINION it's nothing less than a scam (remember I bought one and discovered at first hand that it doesn't do what it claims to do).
Anyone sufficiently interested will look at the address associated with the product which is posted in their online presence. They would see that the premises in Heathfield, Devon were associated, not with Carbonflo, but with an air conditioning firm (which entered liquidation proceedings in the recent past ).
Who in their right mind (apart from me) would part with money for the products in question?
The Carbonflo is, to all intents and purposes, identical to the Broquet that I fitted all those years ago (late eighties) . I'm genuinely taken aback to see that someone has the bare faced cheek to appear on here in an attempt to gain business from a product that a child of six would recognise as being worthless.
|
I admit to being slightly irritated at the resurrection of the previous thread and attempt at free advertising for a product which is irrefutably nothing less than a scam. OK, I'll add that IN MY OPINION it's nothing less than a scam (remember I bought one and discovered at first hand that it doesn't do what it claims to do).
Anyone sufficiently interested will look at the address associated with the product which is posted in their online presence. They would see that the premises in Heathfield, Devon were associated, not with Carbonflo, but with an air conditioning firm (which entered liquidation proceedings in the recent past ).
Who in their right mind (apart from me) would part with money for the products in question?
The Carbonflo is, to all intents and purposes, identical to the Broquet that I fitted all those years ago (late eighties) . I'm genuinely taken aback to see that someone has the bare faced cheek to appear on here in an attempt to gain business from a product that a child of six would recognise as being worthless.
Remember the sayings "there's one born every minute", possibly attributed to PT Barnum, and "never give a sucker an even break".
Also, by definition, 50 % of the population are of below average intelligence (clearly forum members are not in that group!)
Edited by galileo on 25/04/2020 at 12:34
|
|
<< Remember the sayings "there's one born every minute", possibly attributed to PT Barnum, and "never give a sucker an even break". Also, by definition, 50 % of the population are of below average intelligence (clearly forum members are not in that group!) >>
Don't forget that this device has been around for decades, so there will be plenty of unscientific car owners who have never heard of it before and may be taken in.
|
|
It's interesting to look at the details at Companies House. Micro company, one director, accounts are up to date.
|
|
Tiny, even by micro-company standards. And current liabilities about 6 times current assets.
Not much to show for 31 years in the industry.
Edited by Avant on 25/04/2020 at 23:09
|
|
May I suggest that you go to the following web site and perhaps this may give you a little bit of insight to why companies have suffered. And to save you asking the question I am not involved with any company that produces such products. But as an ex development and calibration engineer for a world famous motor company at their research and engineering centre specialising in carbonation and fuel injection I am fully aware of tin based catalysts.
www.fuelcatalystfacts.org
After you have visited the above site perhaps it may enlighten you so you can make comments with more knowledge than you appear to have at the moment
|
|
|
|
Yesterday evening I was about to reply to a couple of posts referencing some evidence supposedly supporting the use of fuel catalysts, but they seem to have been removed.
(Edit: Sorry FP - it looked like spam and had some offensive language in it.)
Edited by Avant on 23/05/2020 at 17:29
|
Yesterday evening I was about to reply to a couple of posts referencing some evidence supposedly supporting the use of fuel catalysts, but they seem to have been removed.
Is it censorship? There's information here about fuel catalysts that gives a more rounded view most people are unaware of fuelcatalystfacts.org/ (please note nothing for sale here, just facts)
|
|
Hi there Carbonflo!
have you picked up and acted upon my postings about the following we site because it would appears that FP Has not been able to view any of my previous posts.
i am referring to the web site:-
www.fuelcatalystfacts.org
|
|
|
Is it censorship? There's information here about fuel catalysts that gives a more rounded view most people are unaware of fuelcatalystfacts.org/ (please note nothing for sale here, just facts)
Is fuelcatalystfacts.org your website? There is no reference on the website to indicate who it belongs to.
Also when I carried out a whois search on the domain name, no contact owner came up. However the domain name (fuelcatalystfacts.org) was only registered 26th April 2020 and your last post on this site was 25th April 2020. Is this just a coincidence?
|
Is it censorship? There's information here about fuel catalysts that gives a more rounded view most people are unaware of fuelcatalystfacts.org/ (please note nothing for sale here, just facts)
Is fuelcatalystfacts.org your website? There is no reference on the website to indicate who it belongs to.
Also when I carried out a whois search on the domain name, no contact owner came up. However the domain name (fuelcatalystfacts.org) was only registered 26th April 2020 and your last post on this site was 25th April 2020. Is this just a coincidence?
I would put good money on it not being a coincidence.
|
|
|
Yesterday evening I was about to reply to a couple of posts referencing some evidence supposedly supporting the use of fuel catalysts, but they seem to have been removed.
(Edit: Sorry FP - it looked like spam and had some offensive language in it.)
If this referring to my postings, then please advise me what offensive language was in them and also enlighten me on how postings can be considered spam.
NOTE
i have screen shots of all my postings and having reviewed each one, cannot see anything than can be deemed as offensive, in fact to the contrary, there are many postings that are offensive IMO, however for the benefit of accepting the right of opinion, treat them with the contempt they deserve.
|
|
|
|
Tiny, even by micro-company standards. And current liabilities about 6 times current assets.
Not much to show for 31 years in the industry.
And here is why: fuelcatalystfacts.org/home/suppression/
|
And here is why: fuelcatalystfacts.org/home/suppression/
Even if these claims were genuine (it all sounds like a very paranoid conspiracy theory to me) I'm sure someone in the know might have leaked the gospel to a motoring world eager to save one or two % on their fuel bills. Sorry, I don't buy it, and it seems many others don't either.
|
And here is why: fuelcatalystfacts.org/home/suppression/
Even if these claims were genuine (it all sounds like a very paranoid conspiracy theory to me) I'm sure someone in the know might have leaked the gospel to a motoring world eager to save one or two % on their fuel bills. Sorry, I don't buy it, and it seems many others don't either.
It comes across as total nonsense - if the devices worked the car manufacturers would be keen to use them as it gives their car better figures than their rivals - which is what they want.
I expect he won't ever explain why the car manufacturers are not interested.
|
And here is why: fuelcatalystfacts.org/home/suppression/
Even if these claims were genuine (it all sounds like a very paranoid conspiracy theory to me) I'm sure someone in the know might have leaked the gospel to a motoring world eager to save one or two % on their fuel bills. Sorry, I don't buy it, and it seems many others don't either.
It comes across as total nonsense - if the devices worked the car manufacturers would be keen to use them as it gives their car better figures than their rivals - which is what they want.
I expect he won't ever explain why the car manufacturers are not interested.
Indeed, as surely they'd be tripping over eachother trying to secure his firm's 'tech' (I wonder if it has a patent?) if it were that good. I saw the 5th Gear piece on it and the other (IMHO) 'snake oil' mpg improvers and proved to me my first instinct (as it was for the vast majority) was correct.
|
|
And here is why: fuelcatalystfacts.org/home/suppression/
Even if these claims were genuine (it all sounds like a very paranoid conspiracy theory to me) I'm sure someone in the know might have leaked the gospel to a motoring world eager to save one or two % on their fuel bills. Sorry, I don't buy it, and it seems many others don't either.
Andrew T, perhaps you can give a considered opinion why the moderator of this forum considers that I am a scammer and appears to be blocking some, (if not all), of my postings, on the pretext of being offensive!
it has always been my belief that forums are for open discussion for those who have comments to put into the debate.
We all have our thoughts and should have the freedom to express them so long that it is relevant to the subject being debated.
However, I am beginning to form an opinion that the discussion on this forum are not balanced. Which further may give those outside this debate the opinion that any arguments that have any opposition to the majority view, are ridiculed, dismissed as being cranky, despite having evidence to support the opposing view.
Of course you may still consider that I am being a paranoid crank, in which case you will be able to produce evidence to support that view.
|
|
<< Andrew T, perhaps you can give a considered opinion why the moderator of this forum considers that I am a scammer and appears to be blocking some, (if not all), of my postings, on the pretext of being offensive! However, I am beginning to form an opinion that the discussion on this forum are not balanced.
Of course you may still consider that I am being a paranoid crank, in which case you will be able to produce evidence to support that view. >>
WM - I'm not sure why I have been asked for an opinion about the actions of our respected mod (who has already answered your question). I have been poking my inexpert nose into this forum for about 15 years, so far without being reprimanded (AFAIR). I have no connection with any commercial company, and no axe to grind supporting or trying to demolish anyone's product. But my impression about Broquet (and others like it) is that there are many fewer reports in its favour than those which show it has no effect. As a trained scientist I tend to accept the balance of proof. I don't think I have called anyone a crank yet.
The only parties apparently with reason to deny the effectiveness of Broquet would seem to be fuel companies, who might risk a very marginal drop in sales ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a visit to the following web site could assist this debate and avoid name calling which in my view weakens any points being made.
www.fuelcatalystfacts.org
|
|
The Weber Man's quite prolific in his responses.
Reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: " the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
(Edit: Agreed! He also used objectionable language as well as posting a link, so has been classed as a spammer.)
Edited by Avant on 23/05/2020 at 17:37
|
The Weber Man's quite prolific in his responses.
Reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: " the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
The reason I have been prolific IS due to the fact that there seems to be a lot of postings on this site based upon opinions that IMO are unbalanced views. Some are questioning the validity of the technology implying that the technology is not based on fact.
In order to get a balance, as a totally independent qualified carburation engineer, I have directed those posts which appear to have unqualified and possible vested interest in being negative to a site that has qualified and verified evidence in it’s content.
For the record the web site is still active and those that have said it is blocked are wrong. That obviously endorses my view that there are those who do not appreciate a balanced viewpoint based upon historical and scientific research carried out since WW2.
The site is:-
www.fuelcatalystfacts.org
The Weber Man.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear! Such scathing comments! But this is thankfully a country that embraces free speech!
Your mind is made up so pointless in pointing you to a web site that gives scientific evidence. So let’s leave it there shall we!
|
|
|
|
|
Why have all my posts been blocked?
I would politely request a valid and justifiable reply
yours in anticipation.
THe Weber Man
|
|
Weber man - one of your earlier posts included a link which looked similar to an attempt at free advertising by an outfit called Carbonflo. You also implied that someone who disagreed with you lacked knowledge.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and reinstated your account, but if you do want to advertise anything on this site, there is a link at the foot of the page.
|
|
Its been said on every thread on every forum these products have appeared on for the last 10 years at least if these products were any good either the major manufacturers would copy them (they have enough money to legally challenge any issues) or the oil companies would buy the manufacturers to stop people saving fuel.
With fines in place for not meeting emissions limits do you really think that manufacturers would simply ignore a product that costs pence to make and save millions in fines a year.
Its as daft as believing a man a shed with a laptop can map a car better than a manufacturer with a multi million product development budget. If the man in a shed was any good he would no longer be working in a shed.
|
Its been said on every thread on every forum these products have appeared on for the last 10 years at least if these products were any good either the major manufacturers would copy them (they have enough money to legally challenge any issues) or the oil companies would buy the manufacturers to stop people saving fuel.
With fines in place for not meeting emissions limits do you really think that manufacturers would simply ignore a product that costs pence to make and save millions in fines a year.
Its as daft as believing a man a shed with a laptop can map a car better than a manufacturer with a multi million product development budget. If the man in a shed was any good he would no longer be working in a shed.
First point is there are no patents and no legal issues.
Second point, as Avant has found out and reported, there’s no money in this so money isn’t the motivation.
Anyway I have an idea to sort things out which is that, once Covid-19 permits, one or two colleagues and myself organise a debate with an equal number of critics, with a view to establishing the true case facts.
Suggested agenda:
1. Naysayers to spell out why they believe fuel catalysts don’t work and are scam products sold by charlatans etc. etc. etc.. and their evidence in support of their views.
2. We give a summary of:
* Origins of fuel catalysts and tests and trials concluding that they work
* Why motor manufacturers as well as oil companies lose money when people use fuel catalysts and far from fitting them as standard have suppressed knowledge and use of them
* How the British public has been wrongly led to believe fuel catalysts don’t work despite extensive research and endorsement by scientists and engineers concluding that they do work, and despite being in beneficial use around the world from shipping in the Pacific to industrial heating boilers in North America, to train operators in India, to snowmobiles in Canada and, according to many reports, United States armed forces.
3. Then questions and answers.
4. The proceedings to be video recorded and posted on Youtube / wherever so people can make up their own minds.
It’s just an idea but do you critics out there think it has merit because if you are so sure of your position, then surely it would be a perfect a chance to nail it once and for all?
Meanwhile here is a new website www.fuelcatalytfacts.org that is NOT selling anything but has some relevant information.
|
|
Sorry - your idea of how such a debate should work is not acceptable.
Firstly: the "naysayers" have no obligation to say why they believe fuel catalysts don't work. The burden of proof is not on them, but on you and your colleagues. The whole concept of if being up to the objectors to a theory to prove a negative is a non-starter intellectually.
In any case, the fact that the use of fuel catalysts is nowhere near as wide-spread as you say it should be quite clearly shows you have a case to make, not the objectors.
Secondly: in my view, there is no chance a live spoken debate would work. I guarantee it would become chaotic. Who would chair it and keep control? There would also be no opportunity to examine any scientific studies or detailed technical evidence if such material is just pulled out of the bag; at the very least all such material would have to be submitted in advance.
Thirdly: if the evidence your side would use is merely that which is presented on the website you have tried to link to (but failed, because the URL is mis-spelt) then there's not much point in having any debate anyway. It is so flimsy and full of unsupported assertions (despite an attempt to dress up what little facts there are) that you are wasting your time.
Fourthly: what, exactly, is the topic you wish to debate? Is it that fuel catalysts allow engines to run on unleaded fuel even if they were designed for leaded (as the website spends so much time "proving")? That is hardly of any relevance to modern motoring. Or is it that catalysts produce greater economy? Or is there something else that fuel catalysts are supposed to do? Having a debate on "whether fuel catalysts work" is so generalised as to be pointless as a topic.
On the basis of what you're saying in your post I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope of any intellectually rigorous contribution from you at all.
Edited by FP on 24/05/2020 at 21:41
|
|
|
|
Weber man - one of your earlier posts included a link which looked similar to an attempt at free advertising by an outfit called Carbonflo. You also implied that someone who disagreed with you lacked knowledge.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and reinstated your account, but if you do want to advertise anything on this site, there is a link at the foot of the page.
Avant,
I thank you for the courtesy of your reply and the reasons you initially blocked the account.
Notwithstanding, in order to put the record straight I will reiterate the fact in one of my initial posts, that I have no commercial interest in any of the products utilising tin based fuel catalysts, reiterate that I was a carburettor design and calibration engineer, and was involved with the study of tin based fuel catalysts with Professor Andrews at Leeds University and also liaised with Jeremy Pearce of the ITRI. In an earlier post you will observe my views on fuel consumption and the difficulty in monitoring for mpg improvements in the “real world”
if you considered that I implied that someone who disagreed with me lacked knowledge, then may I clearly state here i had no such intention in mind. I have seen postings on here that openly giving the view that anybody involved in the technology are nothing more than snake oil salesmen, or out to gain a quick buck by deception. Now that is what I would label as being a reaction that had not researched the subject being discussed, and therefore could be regarded as lacking knowledge.
if you haven’t visited the web site to which you interpreted as a scam at worse, at best a way of getting free advertising, may I suggest that you do, and if you still consider that it is a commercially based site for a specific company in order to get free advertising, please advise me accordingly.
The site clearly gives the background to the technology, and the development up until false information halted it's development.
If I did want to advertise I would do that with full transparency, however as I do not manufacture, promote or sell any specific product, why would I need to advertise?
i have always endeavoured to be professional when making public comments and I consider that to date I have not let my standards drop in any of the posts I have made on this Forum.
Finally, thank you for reinstating my account accordingly. It is appreciated.
|
|
My word! What a truly amazing discourse.
And all at a time when much of the world (not just the UK but the entire WIDE WORLD) is struggling to get by and much of the commerce and infrastructure around us is on it's knees, and people are catching, and dying of, a virulent disease capable of killing any one of us.
And a couple of individuals here are obsessed with trying to promote interest in a device which I, personally, bought and used over a period of years, and which provided me - THE USER - with absolutely no evidence of it serving any useful purpose.
Who, in the world, is going to even give a nano-second of thought to a face to face debate to discuss the device that two people on a motoring forum forum are determined to promote but which no other beggar is remotely interested in?
Like I say - truly amazing.
|
|
Fifth gear have tested the Broquet in a controlled dyno lab environment.
Youtube video here:-
youtu.be/Eevg-SCQpng
And John Cadogan's (scientific) opinion on catalysts
m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ebR0yyPO_U
(Fitch catalyst is basically the same as Broquet product being based on tin alloy pellets)
Edited by brum on 24/05/2020 at 23:49
|
Thanks for that Brum. Spoiler alert!
I’ve just watched the fifth gear test and it appears the way to save fuel is to not buy any of the fuel saving devices they tested.
Every device tested ( including the fuel Broquet) produced a worse mpg figure than the unmodified car.
|
|
|
|
My word! What a truly amazing discourse.
And all at a time when much of the world (not just the UK but the entire WIDE WORLD) is struggling to get by and much of the commerce and infrastructure around us is on it's knees, and people are catching, and dying of, a virulent disease capable of killing any one of us.
And a couple of individuals here are obsessed with trying to promote interest in a device which I, personally, bought and used over a period of years, and which provided me - THE USER - with absolutely no evidence of it serving any useful purpose.
Who, in the world, is going to even give a nano-second of thought to a face to face debate to discuss the device that two people on a motoring forum forum are determined to promote but which no other beggar is remotely interested in?
Like I say - truly amazing.
KB,
I have absolutely no obsession to promote interest in devices using tin based fuel catalysts.
i do however consider the unseen benefits that the technology affords to the environment.
At a time that the three bed exhaust catalyst was being developed, and prior to motor manufacturers, being legally compelled to install them, I was working with the Ford Motor Company at their research and engineering centres at Dunoon in the UK, Merkenich in Germany, their test facility in Gent in Belgium calibrating carburettors for “lean burn” engines.
Ford of Britain, at that time,were favouring this approach rather than the three bed exhaust catalyst to overcome the NOx concerns. However, political pressure influenced by lobbying from the German manufacturers who had vested interest in Johnson and Mathay, the lean burn research was put on back burner with limited funding, whilst the bulk of research was steered into the development of three bed catalysts.
Eventually the funding for lean burn was dropped, as electronic technology was becoming more reliable and carburettors were being phased out. So interest in pre combustion treatment of fuel was not considered commercially viable.
However research was still being carried out, funded by companies producing tin based fuel catalysts. The merits of the technology was realised as an environmental benefit by those institutions conducting the controlled tests, but limited funding and grants meant that a detailed research programme was prohibitively out of reach at that time.
Without doubt, this influenced oil companies to take advantage to discredit the technology, through the medium of motoring publications and institutions that they sponsored either through advertising, or joint partnerships. So that is where we are today, initially high praise for the products by the motoring press, until a revenue stream was threatened, when vested interest overtook them and suddenly a full u turn occurred. This was compounded by instigating the influence of institutions that would have the trust of the motoring public.
So that is where we are today! My only interest is trying to set the record straight and nothing more.
So having been completely transparent with this Forum I trust that you look further into the evidence again that is on the web site I have referred to, of which I have had input with absolutely no interest in gaining any financial benefit.
|
|
To all the visitors and contributors to this Forum.
i have just noticed a typo created by predictive text in my last posting.
please note that the Ford R & E Centre is in Dunton Essex and not Dunoon, which sounds as though it may be a place, fictional or otherwise, in Scotland!
Thank you
The Weber Man
|
please note that the Ford R & E Centre is in Dunton Essex and not Dunoon, which sounds as though it may be a place, fictional or otherwise, in Scotland!
Not fictional at all - it's on the north Clyde coast, not far from the well-known submarine base at Faslane.
But giving full credence to your latest story, you claim that putting a tin catalyst in the fuel stream helps to clean up what emerges from the tailpipe. That sounds beneficial, but the only snag I see - taking KB's experience at face value - is that there is no cash benefit to the end-user, and unless he/she has elaborate testing equipment to hand, no way to judge whether it works. So not likely to attract many eager buyers perhaps.
|
please note that the Ford R & E Centre is in Dunton Essex and not Dunoon, which sounds as though it may be a place, fictional or otherwise, in Scotland!
Not fictional at all - it's on the north Clyde coast, not far from the well-known submarine base at Faslane.
But giving full credence to your latest story, you claim that putting a tin catalyst in the fuel stream helps to clean up what emerges from the tailpipe. That sounds beneficial, but the only snag I see - taking KB's experience at face value - is that there is no cash benefit to the end-user, and unless he/she has elaborate testing equipment to hand, no way to judge whether it works. So not likely to attract many eager buyers perhaps.
Hi Andrew -T,
Thank you for the geography lesson. That explains why predictive text did what it did!
Also thank you for your comments in respect of the main body of my post.
i fully agree with you in respect of the comments that unseen benefits would not be appreciated by a majority of motorists, which to be fair, would not be a commercially viable selling point. But as I have already stated I’m not on this site to promote the sale of any products, purely to put the record straight about the history!
However, if such proof of benefits of emission reductions were verified and recognised by institutions such as the AA, I am sure many motorists would consider fuel catalysts. Would you be in agreement of that statement? Particularly if it improved the mileage between top ups of Abdlu, (Diesel Emission Fluid). How do you think the companies that produce and sell DEF would react to that?
Just an aside, how many motorists are of the belief that the step/start feature is on vehicles to save fuel. Excellent marketing by motor manufacturers to “sell” the concept.
it is in fact a feature to reduce emissions to lower the VED based CO2 levels which are based upon the type approval homologation of emissions required by legislation before Manufacturers can retail that particular model. During the test cycle there are several periods where the vehicle idles. Therefore if you stop the engine no emissions occur during those periods.
It can therefore be reasonable to assume that whilst most motorists are unaware of this, they are aware of the impact this has on the VED, as sales execs may use this influence a customer to buy one vehicle in preference to a competitor’s equivalent model!
In any event doesn’t this feature lose its benefit when manufacturers have incorporated the facility to isolate the feature.
i am pleased that there is now some positive debate emerging from this topic on this Forum.
The Weber Man
|
|
<< However, if such proof of benefits of emission reductions were verified and recognised by institutions such as the AA, I am sure many motorists would consider fuel catalysts. Would you be in agreement of that statement? >>
Many motorists might well consider a fuel catalyst, but IMHO not for very long, because the snake-oil label has been attached to the idea for decades.
I would like a convincing explanation of how a tin catalyst in the fuel supply might alter the combustion behaviour of petrol hydrocarbons and reduce pollutants (presumably NOx) in the exhaust. If it is a true 'catalyst' it is itself unchanged and not consumed. I might believe that hydrocarbon molecules are rearranged (that's what refineries do, using catalysts), but unless significant branching comes about, I can't see that making a lot of difference to what happens in the cylinders. Can you explain ?
<< if it improved the mileage between top ups of Adblu, (Diesel Emission Fluid). How do you think the companies that produce and sell DEF would react to that? >>
I thought we were talking about petrol engines - are you recommending tin catalysts for diesels too ?
|
<< However, if such proof of benefits of emission reductions were verified and recognised by institutions such as the AA, I am sure many motorists would consider fuel catalysts. Would you be in agreement of that statement? >>
Many motorists might well consider a fuel catalyst, but IMHO not for very long, because the snake-oil label has been attached to the idea for decades.
I would like a convincing explanation of how a tin catalyst in the fuel supply might alter the combustion behaviour of petrol hydrocarbons and reduce pollutants (presumably NOx) in the exhaust. If it is a true 'catalyst' it is itself unchanged and not consumed. I might believe that hydrocarbon molecules are rearranged (that's what refineries do, using catalysts), but unless significant branching comes about, I can't see that making a lot of difference to what happens in the cylinders. Can you explain ?
<< if it improved the mileage between top ups of Adblu, (Diesel Emission Fluid). How do you think the companies that produce and sell DEF would react to that? >>
I thought we were talking about petrol engines - are you recommending tin catalysts for diesels too ?
Andrew - T,
Thank you for your latest contribution to a meaningful debate.
Taking you points in order,,
What you have stated about the public being more receptive if a “trusted” organisation verifying the technology I totally agree with, however doesn’t your final clause in that statement indicate that the reputation of the tin based fuel catalyst has been tarnished, and Forums such as this perpetuate that false reputation, with some of the post using negative terms such as you have in saying it has a snake oil label. However, if the AA, revisited the technology in a different light and reported upon the environmental benefits, I’m sure the snake oil label would, in due course, be overcome. So basically you, without me putting words into your mouth, are confirming that the AA has played a major part in soiling the technology with the snake oil label by relying on false or rigged tests to misinform the public.
As I have said in previous posts, I will only comment on what subjects I am qualified in, and Therefore not being a chemical scientist or engineer, I am unable to detail the mechanics of how or what the catalyst does in respect of the structure of the hydrocarbon chains within olefins. Notwithstanding, based upon the research I have been involved in I can state that there is a definite effect that assists the combustion process of ALL hydrocarbon fuels, whether that be as a gas, gas oil or gasoline. That is the best answer I can give in my limitations of chemistry. Being a involved with combustion technology as far as required to carry out the duties of a carburettor design and calibration engineer, any improvements that are available to the medium I was working with, Viz, petrol, were investigated, the science behind that medium being left to the specialist in that field. So if your question was aimed to provoke me into making statements I could not qualify, then unfortunately you have failed in that regard. I do not know who you are or your background, so for all I know you could be a chemical engineer well versed in the aspects of hydrocarbon fuels, so therefore I have to bow to your superior knowledge on that count. So if you want or possibly demand to have a convincing explanation you need to seek those convincing proofs from someone on this Forum or find a chemical engineer accordingly.However what I can inform you is that the tests carried out by Professor Andrews at his faculty in combustion science at Leeds university had a positive reduction in UHC, CO, and NOx. Which are the factors I consider more important than how the structure of the Olefins was affected. I hope this goes some way to putting that of your concerns aside.
Before replying to your last request, I need to inform you that I was involved with diesel injection systems and diesel injection pump caLiberation. I also consider that for the sake of regularity, also inform you that I worked with Professor Andrews on Diesel exhaust emissions and the effect of tin based fuel catalysts on the combustion process using a Euro 3 Perkins Phaser engine the combustion engineering faculty at Leeds University, of which he was the Head of Faculty. So I am suitably qualified to give you a reply to your final enquiry.
Whilst this Forum Topic was mainly addressing the merits of a generic product utilising tin catalyst technology on a petrol engine, then I can understand why you ask the question in respect of my reference to diesel fuel. I am not recommending anything and you have completely missed the point I was making when I referred to Abdu, or DEF.
You are probably aware that DEF is injected into the exhaust system on a Diesel engine, to reduce NOx, which as you quite rightly mentioned earlier in your post, Is one of the benefits of using tin based catalysts on fuel. Therefore there is less NOx to be converted into the constituents by introducing an ammonia based additive into the exhaust stream. Currently there is anecdotal evidence to support that the refills of DEF are extended. As these are anecdotal at this point in time, it is clear further research is required to verify it in a controlled test with all the necessary emission measuring equipment. For the sake of regularity I can inform you that the ammonia in DEF is generally generated from animal urine, so please do not ask me to explain the chemical process involved, as I have no idea! Suffice it to say that vehicle manufacturers, their dealerships, and owners of vehicles that use DEF, don’t question the science but accept that it works.
And finally, once again I will reiterate I am not posting on this site to promote, recommend, market or sell any form of fuel catalysts, so can we please put this red herring to bed.
i have already gone to extreme lengths to qualify why I came to this site, which for the benefit of regularity, is set the record straight in respect of the history and misreporting that has resulted in points of view that you have clearly demonstrated in your first paragraph of the post I am responding to.
I trust the above satisfies your curiosity.
Respectfully yours,
The Weber Man
|
|
“i have already gone to extreme lengths to qualify why I came to this site, which for the benefit of regularity, is set the record straight in respect of the history and misreporting…”
If this is so, it would be helpful if you would provide focused arguments rather than the rambling posts you seem to indulge in.
Could we deal with two specific points you raise:
1. “… the AA has played a major part in soiling the technology with the snake oil label by relying on false or rigged tests to misinform the public.”
Please provide references to these “rigged tests” so we can scrutinise them and draw our own conclusions.
2. “…the tests carried out by Professor Andrews at his faculty in combustion science at Leeds university had a positive reduction in UHC, CO, and NOx.”
Again, please provide chapter and verse.
To have a meaningful debate we need hard evidence, not vague claims.
|
|
FP
short and sweet reply, as you have already stated you don’t read my posts fully.
go to www.fuelcataystfacts.org
what you seek is there. No further comment from me as you obviously have no interest what I post. Or have you forgotten already what you send earlier?
respectfully yours
The Weber Man
|
|
I assume you intend to refer me to www.fuelcatalystfacts.org. It would be helpful if you could get the URL right.
"... as you have already stated you don’t read my posts fully." Please point me to where I said that.
I asked about the tests carried out by Professor Andrews. My apologies for overlooking the report quoted on the website.
It is however less than convincing. The conclusions were based on effects observed on only three engines under workshop, not open-road conditions, I assume from the wording. For the diesel engine the "CO and UHC reductions could [italics mine] be due to a catalytic influence of carbonflo." Also, "there was no significant increase in Bosch smoke emissions at any test condition" - hardly a ringing endorsement. The results for the petrol engine are more interesting.
The biggest problem, apart from the fact that only three engines were used and the tests were not done in real-world conditions, is that the tests are dated 1990. Engine design has moved on a long way and more complete combustion of fuel has resulted, because of the need to produce more fuel efficiency and lower emissions. For the case in favour of fuel catalysts to be convincing, significant improvements would need to demonstrated over and above what modern engines achieve.
For tests like this to be convincing they would need to be carried out in a large number of engines/vehicles over a significant mileage and under real road conditions.
I also asked about the AA's false or rigged tests. From the website referred to, there are numerous claims about the AA's complicity in various deceptions regarding the use of unleaded petrol. However, there is no direct evidence supplied.
So the website makes a less than convincing case.
Humbly yours,
FP
|
I assume you intend to refer me to www.fuelcatalystfacts.org. It would be helpful if you could get the URL right.
"... as you have already stated you don’t read my posts fully." Please point me to where I said that.
I asked about the tests carried out by Professor Andrews. My apologies for overlooking the report quoted on the website.
It is however less than convincing. The conclusions were based on effects observed on only three engines under workshop, not open-road conditions, I assume from the wording. For the diesel engine the "CO and UHC reductions could [italics mine] be due to a catalytic influence of carbonflo." Also, "there was no significant increase in Bosch smoke emissions at any test condition" - hardly a ringing endorsement. The results for the petrol engine are more interesting.
The biggest problem, apart from the fact that only three engines were used and the tests were not done in real-world conditions, is that the tests are dated 1990. Engine design has moved on a long way and more complete combustion of fuel has resulted, because of the need to produce more fuel efficiency and lower emissions. For the case in favour of fuel catalysts to be convincing, significant improvements would need to demonstrated over and above what modern engines achieve.
For tests like this to be convincing they would need to be carried out in a large number of engines/vehicles over a significant mileage and under real road conditions.
I also asked about the AA's false or rigged tests. From the website referred to, there are numerous claims about the AA's complicity in various deceptions regarding the use of unleaded petrol. However, there is no direct evidence supplied.
So the website makes a less than convincing case.
Humbly yours,
FP
Good afternoon FP,
So much has gone on this site, that sometimes it is difficult to keep track of who has asked what!
Further to your remarks about diesel emissions, I have arranged to have the full test report of the emission test carried out on the Perkins Phasor engine at Leeds University conducted by Professor Andrews. During this test Bosch Smoke Filters were used to determine any change in particle emissions. I am hopeful that this will be on the web site within the next 24 hours.
So please bear with me and visit the site during the course of this evening and tomorrow morning.
For regularity and confirmation, the web site address is:-
www.fuelcatalystfacts.org
Respectfully yours,
The Weber Man
|
|
<< So if your question was aimed to provoke me into making statements I could not qualify, then unfortunately you have failed in that regard. I do not know who you are or your background, so for all I know you could be a chemical engineer well versed in the aspects of hydrocarbon fuels, so therefore I have to bow to your superior knowledge on that count. >>
I was not trying to provoke anything. I was a practising chemist (gas kinetics) about 50 years ago and still have a residual interest, but never a chemical engineer. To summarise what I have gathered so far:
- this tin catalyst offers no detectable advantage in fuel consumption, but reduces exhaust impurities. Therefore with the present desire to reduce urban pollution, that is the area on which it should focus;
- if this cleaning effect is genuine, it seems the catalyst must alter the fuel between leaving the tank and reaching the cylinders, in a manner which you cannot explain in detail. I am equally uninformed, but rather sceptical until I find out more;
- the diesel additive you refer to is, I believe, called Adblue; it is a concentrated mix of urea - unlikely to come from animal urine unless there is a vast herd somewhere.
Edited by Andrew-T on 25/05/2020 at 23:44
|
|
Andrew-T
Thank you for your informative postings. I fully appreciate your input and corrections.
I gather from your comments that you have an understanding of the action of Adblu, and I thank you for advising me of its main constituent. I was led to understand that the ammonia was extracted from animal urine, so thank you for putting me right on that aspect.
i apologise for mis understanding your post requesting the information in respect of the actual effect tin has on fuel, but with some of the contributors making obscure comments and allegations, I have myself become sceptical about this forum.
Thirty years of history combating the giants of industry and “trusted” organisations has unfortunately taken it’s toll.
i will now purely be an observer on this forum and will make no further contributions to it.
Respectfully yours,
The Weber Man
|
|
My word! What a truly amazing discourse.
And all at a time when much of the world (not just the UK but the entire WIDE WORLD) is struggling to get by and much of the commerce and infrastructure around us is on it's knees, and people are catching, and dying of, a virulent disease capable of killing any one of us.
And a couple of individuals here are obsessed with trying to promote interest in a device which I, personally, bought and used over a period of years, and which provided me - THE USER - with absolutely no evidence of it serving any useful purpose.
Who, in the world, is going to even give a nano-second of thought to a face to face debate to discuss the device that two people on a motoring forum forum are determined to promote but which no other beggar is remotely interested in?
Like I say - truly amazing.
KB,
As an aside to my lengthy response to your posting, I cannot for the life of me see the relevance of COVID-19 in this debate. I also find it highly condescending of you to make the assumption that I am trying to persuade you to buy any form of fuel catalyst. I am not.
I am however ever mindful of the impact the internal combustion engine has on the environment. Unfortunately there are motorists that look no further than their wallets, and would not consider spending money or something they can’t necessarily see the benefits of.
what comes out of the tailpipe of your vehicle’s exhaust is more important to me than you saving a few quid on fuel. (There is irrefutable scientific evidence that emission are reduced even from vehicles with exhaust catalysts fitted, when tin based catalysts are used).
if you were that concerned, you would only use the super grade fuels available, which were for a period, unavailable from some petrol stations due to the low take up by motorists.
There is not only empirical evidence, but also anecdotal evidence, that vehicles designed to run on leaded fuel can run on unleaded fuel using tin based catalysts without having to retard the ignition to avoid detonation.
Retarding the ignition, as you are probably aware, reduces the power and therefore more fuel is used. Therefore by simple deduction implies, but not necessarily proving, that if you do not retard the ignition your fuel consumption is not affected going from leaded to unleaded petrol on older vehicles.
You also make the presumption that no beggar is remotely interested in the technology. However would you disagree with my view that there are those who would possibly be interested if the technology was proven that it improved the level of emissions from the tailpipe?
Respectively,
The Weber Man
|
|
In the early 70's, Honda launched the civic with their lean burn ( stratified charge) Cvcc engine. This engine did away with the need of a catalyst and other equipment to meet the emission regulations.
If I remember correctly, either GM or Ford laughed at their approach, insisting it only worked on small engines and was no good for gas gussellers. Honda then modified the heads on a large V8, made by whoever's said it wouldn't work, to Honda's design and handed it to the chairman of said company!
|
In the early 70's, Honda launched the civic with their lean burn ( stratified charge) Cvcc engine. This engine did away with the need of a catalyst and other equipment to meet the emission regulations.
If I remember correctly, either GM or Ford laughed at their approach, insisting it only worked on small engines and was no good for gas gussellers. Honda then modified the heads on a large V8, made by whoever's said it wouldn't work, to Honda's design and handed it to the chairman of said company!
Oil Rag,
you are correct with respect of Honda, but incorrect about Ford. I cannot comment about GM, however your assumption could hold water as GM had links with MB and owned Opel, from which Vauxhall in the UK shared vehicle platforms. But not being involved with GM, I would not be prepared to say any further than that. I will stick with what I know and leave speculation well out of this debate.
In respect of the CVCC engine, Ford did come up with their own concept, which was an engine that was an integral head/block design, i.e. there was no detachable cylinder head.
A lot of the lean burn research was done on this engine, which had very basic electronic control, including using crankshaft sensors to control ignition.
Ford realised that that variable valve timing was also essential, and that this would limit the size of the engine, so your comment about the suitability of lean burn in larger engines would require development on too many fronts, so the parent US company withdrew the budget to pursue the technology any further, bearing in mind the engines used for the USA market.
The result was adapting the CCVC concept that evolved into the CVC engine used in the mark 3 Escort/Orion and later Fiestas. This as you are probably aware replaced the OHV Kent series engine. About the same time Ford decided, with the merging of FOB and FOG into Ford of Europe to drop the Essex V6 in favour of the German “Hummer” V6 engine, the German OHC “Pinto” engine already had superseded the Essex V4 engine.
it was shortly after this that I left Ford as carburation was being superseded by the Bosch Jetronic system. So not able to make any further constructive contribution to the debate in that respect.
|
|
If I were to say that I've inwardly, considered analysed and digested every single word of what our two esteemed contributors have spent hours writing, I'd not be displaying total honesty.
With regard to my mention of Covid 19 (which seems not to have gone down well with the venerable scribe) I made the point that most people at this time time have more pressing matters with which to concern themselves than to be wasting time reading these lengthy and pointless dialogues which, whilst of clear significance to our two proponents of the device(s) in question, are of inestimably less concern to everyone else.
It's of absolutely no concern of mine how much energy you expend on trying to convert the great unwashed and ill-learned into taking a scrap of notice of what you've written (and will doubtless continue to write) and it's entire inappropriate of me to suggest you desist from carrying on expending forum bandwidth if it gives you some form of pleasure or satisfaction, but, in all reality, don't fool yourselves into thinking this particular topic is going to project any of the supposed benefits that you both seem to have concocted in your collective minds.
I don't think I have a great deal more to offer - and that probably won't be of any great concern to you two. Bu if I haven't made myself clear then I'm confident you won't hesitate to seek further clarification.
[you see, we can all write paragraphs of pointless nonsense and almost make it sound as though we know what we're talking about :-) ]
Edited by KB. on 25/05/2020 at 19:38
|
If I were to say that I've inwardly, considered analysed and digested every single word of what our two esteemed contributors have spent hours writing, I'd not be displaying total honesty.
With regard to my mention of Covid 19 (which seems not to have gone down well with the venerable scribe) I made the point that most people at this time time have more pressing matters with which to concern themselves than to be wasting time reading these lengthy and pointless dialogues which, whilst of clear significance to our two proponents of the device(s) in question, are of inestimably less concern to everyone else.
It's of absolutely no concern of mine how much energy you expend on trying to convert the great unwashed and ill-learned into taking a scrap of notice of what you've written (and will doubtless continue to write) and it's entire inappropriate of me to suggest you desist from carrying on expending forum bandwidth if it gives you some form of pleasure or satisfaction, but, in all reality, don't fool yourselves into thinking this particular topic is going to project any of the supposed benefits that you both seem to have concocted in your collective minds.
I don't think I have a great deal more to offer - and that probably won't be of any great concern to you two. Bu if I haven't made myself clear then I'm confident you won't hesitate to seek further clarification.
[you see, we can all write paragraphs of pointless nonsense and almost make it sound as though we know what we're talking about :-) ]
KB,
thank you for your frankness and to the point posting.
i respect your opinion but do not necessarily agree with it. So in that alone we are both in agreement.
But just ponder the following points.
I have been completely transparent, I have divulged information that can be reliably verified in an attempt to give credibility to my posts. Which appears to have no truck with you. But at least I have been honest.
your post is further evidence of the damage that false reporting has on the technology. Something that may be useful to the web site in the future. So thank you for being candid in expressing your views I am very appreciative of the contents of all your contribution in this debate.
I have extracted from you the very evidence I was seeking.
Your final paragraph I will treat with the content it deserves.
Rest assured this will be the last post you personally will receive from me, so as a bit of advice, don’t bother to reply to this post, you will be wasting forum bandwidth!
respectfully yours
The Weber Man
|
|
<< I have extracted from you the very evidence I was seeking. Your final paragraph I will treat with the content it deserves. >>
Amusing what predictive text can come up with (I presume that is the cause?) ....
|
|
|
And there was me foolishly believing that running older engines on unleaded fuel tended to cause valve seat recession which has nothing to do with advancing the timing. Could that be the reason why 'the industry' concluded that tin was no substitute for replacement cylinder heads?
|
And there was me foolishly believing that running older engines on unleaded fuel tended to cause valve seat recession which has nothing to do with advancing the timing. Could that be the reason why 'the industry' concluded that tin was no substitute for replacement cylinder heads?
Retarded ignition will cause an engine to run at a higher temperatures. Higher temperatures will accelerate valve recession. Engines that had the ignition retarded to prevent detonation when using unleaded fuel suffered badly from valve recession so there was a need to have cylinder heads fitted with appropriately treated steel Inserts fitted.
However, by using tin based fuel catalysts, the need to retard the ignition was negated, therefore higher combustion temperatures were avoided. Under normal driving conditions valve recession on those engines that were prone to it even when using leaded fuel, such as the A series BMC engine, the recession was in line with that expected when leaded fuel was used.
the high speed tests that some commissioned evaluations of the motoring press, would have resulted in severe valve recession anyway. This was the case of the tests commissioned by the FBHVC with MIRA. they set the acceptable valve recession parameters prior to the tests being done, however these were altered to a level to enable the additives to be given the appropriate FBHVC seal of approval. The tests on chemical additives were done using new cylinder heads. The other tests on tin based catalysts were done on cylinder heads that had suffered VR on previous tests after they were redressed to give perfect seals between valve and seat. Thus once the tests were rerun the recession was already in progress.
The reason I know these facts is that I was present for one of the tests and had long discussions with MIRA personnel prior to, during, and after the test was done.
The results of the MIRA tests are not available as it was a condition that these would remain the property of MIRA to avoid them being used for marketing purposes.
iHowever a Metallurgical analysis conducted by Southampton University did confirm that there was a minimal leaching of tin oxide In the combustion chambers of a BMC “A” Series cylinder head that had a tin based catalyst fitted and was run using unleaded petrol. The results of this analysis is in a written and verified report.
i trust this addresses the point you raised in your posting
respectfully yours
The Weber Man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
