Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Oregon, USA
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:34 pm Post subject: The controversy over fuel saving devices
I guess I really hit a raw nerve with some folks! Didn't mean to offend of course, just my opinion. It is a very important issue however, and I wish to hear your thoughts about it.
Are fuel saving devices available? Have you used one that works? Have you been ripped off with one that didn't? Have you actually ever tried any of them, or is this simply the same negative TV media perspective fed to an uninformed populace?
If you think that last remark was a little bit hostile, you might now thinking that it should be the media's job to inform the populace of the failure of devices like these to 'protect' the consumer from would be "gas saver barons" who are running amuck arount this great land of ours. Well picture this. If you are that person, chances are you shop at a store, and buy the same types of goods that most of us do, right? Sure. Well, what do you think about the quality of the products comming out of China? I mean the general quality overall. You should be well aware that a large percentage of your shopping dollar goes to China, well what are you getting in return for it?
Can you name a product that you have bought from that perticular country that was broken right out of the box? I can name almost half of the products I have ever purchased. I am not trying to harp on the Chinese, what I am saying is that's a serious consumer issue. The fact that a large percentage of the goods sold to us from China, (A) don't work properly, (B) break within two weeks of purchase, or (C) broken, at least partially right out of the box. That demands a 20/20 investigation or some other consumer groups looking into don't you think?
We are not talking about some dirt farmer who invents an evil fuel saving device for his car that's saves him say %10 on gas, and he charges $30 for. Only to people who now and trust him of course, because we have all heard about how dangerous these "fuel saving scams" are. We are talking about the third largest chinese trading partner, selling billions of dollars worth of partially faulty merchandise here every year. And how many news blurbs have you seen about that?
Here is a comment posted to the original article, and my reply to it
Quote:
Re: Inventor asks his government to release details of his invention
by Anonymous on Saturday, December 04 @ 02:50:03 PST
Sorry, but a heck of a lot of supposed fuel "saving" devices HAVE been tested over the years, and not one of them has shown any worthwhile benefits. Khaos relies on exactly the same principles as many other devices that have been tested and shown not to work, quite apart from the theoretical arguments against it.
Sure, the car industry in the US has traditionally not seen fuel economy as a priority. But it is big, big, business in Europe and industry is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in developing new technologies. European car companies would jump at the chance to fit one of these gizmos, if they really worked. Strangely, the inventors are nearly always unwilling to pay a few thousand dollars on definitive tests to prove they work, despite the millions to be made.
Re: Inventor asks his government to release details of his invention
by TheLoneInventor (one@loneinventor.com) on Wednesday, December 08 @ 22:09:00 PST
I do agree that many of the inventions which have been and are being marketed as "fuel saving devices" are completely useless. However, this one in particular sounds like it did indeed impress government officials in the Phillipines, but was then recieved by those officals and never implemented.
I will tell you what I know about the internal combustion engine and airflow. The more, and the colder the air intake, the better the reaction and cleaner burning. It is also true that when tuning the carburator on a small or large gasoline engine in good shape, that the tighter you tighten down that fuel screw (gas inlet porportioning screw/valve) the better the engine sounds and performs, at most all RPMs. There is of course exception to this. You of course connot take all the fuel out, because the engine doesn't have enough compression to sustain the reaction. (explanation for that in a second)
What's that telling me? I assume it would mean that the less fuel, and the more air in the reaction, the hotter and cleaner the reaction is. Which would of course yield better performance etc. Cold air intake systems have been used in racing for many years, for the performance enhancment of a few horsepower here or there. They have been proven to work there, by people that know and love thier vehicles, and use them like tools, everyday.
I was also fortunate enough to know a few truck drivers who relayed stories to me about older trucks, and that they had a large 'Flap' that could be engaged from inside the cab, that engaged to cover the air intake to the engine, for the specific purpose of killing the engine. Well.., so...?? They needed that to kill the engine because when the truck ran out of deisel, the engine would begin to race due to complete lack of fuel. Due to the heat and high compression of the engine, the AIR that was being taken in was being ignited at a far more efficient rate then the fuel was. This caused many engines to literally fly apart. So and yes quite literally it sounds as if the truck industry has also engineered "around" such a terrrible defect.
You never know until you replicate one and find out, right?
Well, what do you think?
Let us know!
Last edited by TheLoneInventor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total
However, this one in particular sounds like it did indeed impress government officials in the Phillipines, but was then recieved by those officals and never implemented.
...which proves nothing. Lots of fuel "saving" devices have in the past impressed respected people, and then been proved to be utterly useless. Despite repeated demands by skeptics on various Phillipines discussion forums, the inventors of Khaos have entirely failed to produce any convincing test data. This from a device that has been around for over 30 years!
TheLoneInventor wrote:
I will tell you what I know about the internal combustion engine and airflow. The more, and the colder the air intake, the better the reaction and cleaner burning. It is also true that when tuning the carburator on a small or large gasoline engine in good shape, that the tighter you tighten down that fuel screw (gas inlet porportioning screw/valve) the better the engine sounds and performs, at most all RPMs. There is of course exception to this. You of course connot take all the fuel out, because the engine doesn't have enough compression to sustain the reaction. (explanation for that in a second)
What's that telling me? I assume it would mean that the less fuel, and the more air in the reaction, the hotter and cleaner the reaction is. Which would of course yield better performance etc. Cold air intake systems have been used in racing for many years, for the performance enhancment of a few horsepower here or there. They have been proven to work there, by people that know and love thier vehicles, and use them like tools, everyday.
I was also fortunate enough to know a few truck drivers who relayed stories to me about older trucks, and that they had a large 'Flap' that could be engaged from inside the cab, that engaged to cover the air intake to the engine, for the specific purpose of killing the engine. Well.., so...?? They needed that to kill the engine because when the truck ran out of deisel, the engine would begin to race due to complete lack of fuel. Due to the heat and high compression of the engine, the AIR that was being taken in was being ignited at a far more efficient rate then the fuel was. This caused many engines to literally fly apart. So and yes quite literally it sounds as if the truck industry has also engineered "around" such a terrrible defect.
With the greatest of respect, this simply demonstrates that you are not an expert on combustion in engines. Read a good book, or even visit www.fuelsaving.info/air_bleed.htm
TheLoneInventor wrote:
You never know until you replicate one and find out, right?
Khaos is, in all important technical respects, identical to dozens of other devices that have been proven (at great expense to regulators and industry) to be entirely useless. Should it not be up to Mr Planas, who has already made tens of thousands of dollars from the device and stands to make millions more if it is proved to work, to pay the cost of the definitive tests?
No offense to Mr Planas, The Lone Inventor, or anyone else intended!
Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Oregon, USA
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:48 pm Post subject:
Hello Fuelsaving_info,
I read your page. I must tell you that when I think that the device should be replicated, I am truly going off what I read in the article I posted. I am aware that the device has been around for 30 years, but I was unaware of great gain on the part of the inventor, other than and strictly from that government contest. That's all that was mentioned.
Secondly, the "air bleed" device type mentioned on your page doesn't sound like that's what this thing is. Yes, an air bleed device is suicide on more modern computer regulated systems, and I can't see it doing much good for an older mostly vacuum model either, specifically for the effect which you mentioned on your page. The vacuum goes through the ground. You can scarcely run an engine like that! Everything depends on vacuum pressure, even today many things are dependant upon it. The way, again from the article, the device sounded to me was that it was not at all hooked up in the manner pictured on your site. Since you so rightly pointed out I am not an expert, I will ask you then, as you must at least be in the company of a few... What does the article mean when it mentioned,
Quote:
Khaos Super Turbo Charger
I am sure that you are aware what a turbocharger is, correct? Dictionary.Com says
Quote:
tur·bo·su·per·charg·er
A supercharger that uses an exhaust-driven turbine to maintain air-intake pressure especially in high-altitude aircraft. Also called turbocharger.
Often reffered to as a 'blower', and that's exactly what they are in some form or another. The auto manufacturers around the world sure have thrown away a lot of money on these over the last couple of decades if they truly don't work.
On your site you say,
Quote:
I have also worked on some extremely high performance turbocharged and naturally aspirated derivatives
Implying that yes, you are well aware of turbochargers, and that indeed they do increase performance.
Quote:
“The Khaos Super Turbo Charger adds air during the combustion process during idling that provides the ideal air-gas mixture and burns fuel efficiently.
Making one believe that the device adds the air, not simply lets it in, and in a bad place at that. Once again according to the artice I read.
You seem to know much about these types of devices fuel, do you have perhaps copies of the patents that the article mentions? I won't ask you if you have ever tried an "air bleed" device type like that, because it does look and sound quite worthless. Have you tried anything even more off the wall, that sounded very promising but didn't work? I realize that you are experienced in all things internal combustion engine accorfing to your site. But let's be very clear. Your site is telling me not to believe the crap I hear on the net about fuel saving devices. But your site is on the net telling me about fuel saving devices. Wouldn't you and or I be quickly called internet 'cranks' my the media? Or does your more mainstream appeal give you some credibility.
For the record, I will take your word for your credentials however many people won't. There's an old saying, "An expert is a guy from 50 miles out of town with a briefcase."
Here's my 'qualifications' to even so much as discuss the subject.
Small engine mechanic as a kid. Briggs, motorcyles, and such.
Automobile mechanic as a teenager. Built and re-built engines, worked on many for race purposes. Many little tricks learned about pulling a few horse power out of this or that, and those stick with you. Porting heads, calculating rod angles and such. Everything you can do to get a few extra horses. In quarter mile racing, you can see the horsepower increase in your times directly, very usefull for long term, repetative experimentation.
But that's all as good as a scoot, and a boot.
Me, I'm very content with the milage I get from my 93 Corsica. It's the smallest vehicle size that will accomodate the family driving needs, and it get's about 36 miles to the gallon/highway at an average of about 75 MPH. (but it could be better, right?) I need to get a new lambda sensor, as it hasn't been changed in many thousands of miles. Also, just because you are paying more money for gas, don't think it's exactly the same caliber as it should be. Seems to have an extra oxygenating agent added in lately, in my area anyway. Makes it burn a little faster as well.
Also, would you not agree that replacing the 'oxygen sensor' (as the greese monkeys like me call it) is one of the best fuel saving dollars you can spend? Also changing oil and sparkplugs, air filter of course, and don't forget the tire pressure! Good automobile maintainence is very important to better gas milage.
One more question, what do you say about the older deisel truck story? Is this not true for older Peterbilts and others? I saw that you have worked on deisel before correct? Now that doesn't make you an expert on deisel engine repair, or operation however so you might ask around. Ever hear of the concept of abstract tools? Of course you have. You don't have to know how it works, only what it does. Well I tell you, running out of fuel has scared the daylights out of many a trucker Sir.
Does Planas's device work? Beats the heck out of me. Turbochargers certainly do. The work "Khaos" doesn't tell us much, unless he has actually reproduced that effect. A washing machine in Japan was displayed featuring a similar mechanism. I am confident that people like your self that have watched these trends over many years have seen a great number of discouraging results, and that is unfortunate. I will say however that there is always something to make work better than it did. The internal combustion engine (ICE), is something that most of us use daily and so therefore a great deal of effort should be put forth on the part of individuals to improve upon it. The ICE is nowhere near as effecient electric motors. According to http://www.iit.edu/~ipro326/start.html
Quote:
The primary motivation behind HEVs is to exploit the improved effeciency of electric motors (EM) over the traditional internal combustion engine (ICE). The efficiency of an ICE maxes out at about 30-35% under optimal conditions, while the efficiency of EMs can range from 60-95%. The 35% efficiency of an ICE is under optimal conditions, and is usually achieved at some certain power output, and is not, in general, the efficiency that is achieved in the day-to-day use of a vehicle. However, in a hybrid configuration, this level of efficiency can be attained and thereby improve fuel economy (as well as acceleration, top speed, quarter mile times, 0-60 MPH times, etc.).
I realize there is a world of difference, and other problems as of yet with widespread use of entirely electric vehicles. The point is the good Ol ICE, and yes I mean OLD, if you check out http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsgasa.htm it states that the internal combustion engine that we all know and love had it's roots back in 1680, 324 years ago. I realize dramatic improvements have been made so far, and that's my point! Continue the innovation related to the ICE in order to make a better ICE, a more powerfull ICE, a friendlier ICE.. and so on.
It's great to talk to you Sir. Hope to hear from you soon.
Let me start by saying: I'm not "anti-inventor", and apologies if I sound like I am. The car industry needs inventors, and at least some of the time people who might be called "lone inventors" have come up with some really good ideas. So all credit to those imaginative people out there!
Sadly, the petrol engine has had so much development work on it already that the room for miraculous, "off the wall" improvements is severely limited. That's why I'm always sceptical of devices like the Khaos.
On to the detail...
Turbochargers are great. They use exhaust energy to run a fan and blow large amounts of pressurised air into the engine. The ECU adds more fuel in proportion and voila! Loads more power. Khaos is nothing like this. It has no means of pressurising the air, and even if it did the pipe connecting it to the engine is far too small to deliver the air the engine needs at full power. Why Mr Planas should choose to call it a "Turbo Charger", when it has absolutely no resemblance to such a device, is beyond me. It's an air bleed, nothing more and nothing less.
I did search for patents on Khaos, but found nothing. Mr Planas does apparently have one patent, from the mid-90's, but I can't find any on-line information about it.
You're quite right, I am a site on the net offering advice on fuel saving devices. I might be just as wrong (crooked?) as the other sites. The difference is, I'm not asking for your money! The people selling magnets, air bleeds, etc make money - lots of it - if people believe them, so it's in their interests to "bend the truth" somewhat. If you want to check on my credentials, it would be possible to find and read some of the technical papers I have had published (I don't think any are on line, though).
Diesel engines are a whole different kettle of fish, of course, but I do know a fair bit about them. When you put in more fuel, you get more torque. When you put in less fuel, you get less torque - right down to zero fuel = zero torque. On any modern car diesel, running out of fuel means the engine stops, and they don't have any kind of air-flap "kill" system. Having said that, some old / worn diesels end up burning their own lubricating oil in some circumstances, and this can cause them to race off and explode. You'd certainly need a kill flap then! How this is related to running out of fuel, I'm not sure.
You're absolutely right that maintenance is probably the best fuel saving measure there is, though fortunately the most modern cars need a lot less of this. For example, anything meeting the "OBDII" diagnostic legislation will detect itself if the lambda sensor is faulty, and put on a light to tell you. If the light's not on, the sensor is fine, and no need to change it.
Of course there is much work still to be done on the ICE, though there are some fundamental physical laws that mean you can never beat about 40% efficiency. And the electric motor is great - until you realise how much enery is wasted turning the oil, coal or whatever into electricity at the power station! Rest assured, there are thousands of very smart people working very hard at improving ICE efficiency, since there are millions of pounds to be made from even small improvements.
Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Oregon, USA
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:34 am Post subject:
I'm very glad you are not anti inventor that of course makes my day. Yes the auto industry definately needs and frequently uses inventors to help them sell better products. Mostly safety lately, but that's still a great thing.
I agree that the petrol engine has been developed out almost as far as possible, so it's therefore a great idea to be skeptical of devices such as this. Also in today's world there is always someone trying to rip you off in one way or another.
I did find and look at http://www.khaos.com.ph/ and the device he shows a picture of definately does look like one of your "air bleed" devices. I also noted that there isn't a whole lot of documented evidence of performance located on the site. I am sure you would say "Surprise, surprise"
Yes, you definately deserve some credibility for not asking for money. I will admit that Mr. Planas, and the rest are doing just that. Like I said, I do believe your credentials and I am sure you are quite a facinating fellow. To that end, I must ask you... when working with glass engine blocks like you mention on your site, what type of lubricant do you use? Do you use standard oil? Or is that to dark to allow you to observe the processes you desire to monitor? (I was honestly very curious about that)
I can see the burning of the lubricating oil if the engine was like you say, worn and hot, although the way this fellow described it to me this type of thing used to happen right out of the box all the time. From the link about the gasoline engine innovation dates above it mentioned,
Quote:
1807 - Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland invented an internal combustion engine that used a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Rivaz designed a car for his engine - the first internal combustion powered automobile. However, his was a very unsuccessful design.
which I thought was very interesting. Evidently man has dreamed of his internal combustion engine running on readily available flammable gas for a very long time.
Indeed maintenance is the one SURE medicine for curbing your car's drinking problem.
Great news about the sensor, I usually replace with spark plugs at those intervals just to save myself time.
I hope that what work can be done on the ICE, will be done. I love the ICE, love to hear it roar under the hood. Love to feel the power of a well built engine. Very glad to see that Chrysler has reintroduced the "Hemi" here in the US. (can't wait to get my hands on one of those) I would however prefer electric if at all possible.
I am aware of the complex challenges involved with electric vehicles. Hybrids seem to have yeilded promising results and sales, for Toyota at least.
I was listening to a financial radio broadcast over the weekend on the AM radio here in the US, and the host was going on about the need to "find vision, through leadership" with specifically the milage rating on our automibiles. It was his position that if the president stood up, and did the very unpopular, and some believe unachievable thing of mandating serious milage improvements in all domestic vehicles within so many years, that we could free our country of our dependance on Saudi oil. His statement was that "if we could double the milage output from our vehichles, we could reduce our dependance on imports to some %2. I don't have any idea if his figures are correct, but it does give pause to think.
If you believe the US went to the moon, then you also believe that it was directly spawned by the so called "space race" and the edict of our then president Kennedy.with his statement "we choose to go to the moon..." It makes you wonder what can be accomplished when people have a reason to do so. A man on the moon in under a decade. Science fiction into science fact. I always look forward to such innovation, don't see much of it though.
Have you seen the latest story regarding Planas? ABS-CBN News says
Quote:
Inventionhaus International Corp., which manufactures Khaos Super Gas Saver, Monday signed international distribution contracts with six companies from Spain, Saudi Arabia, India, Australia, Marianas Islands and Indonesia.
I notice they are already calling it the "Super Gas Saver"... That chould be a bad sign. Unreputable products or services often change or variate names to continue to sell products when a large percentage of the population is aware of a scam. One never knows however.
You are certainly right about him making profit however. This article states that he has sold 12,000 of these since 2003. That's quite a bit of money, I truly hope he deserves it, but you just might be right about that too.
Also in today's world there is always someone trying to rip you off in one way or another
Sadly this is all too true. It also means that industry is not very receptive to new ideas from "lone inventors", however good they may be, because we have seen so many scams in the past.
Quote:
To that end, I must ask you... when working with glass engine blocks like you mention on your site, what type of lubricant do you use
For engines with complete glass cylinders, from what I remember it was usually olive oil. These engines were anyway run quite slowly and at low load, with plastic piston rings to reduce wear and friction on the glass. The crank and valves were lubricated with normal oil but care was taken to keep this away from the cylinder since, as you say, it would affect vision. These engines were a complete pain in the butt, as you can imagine, but absolutely unbeatable for understanding what goes on.
Quote:
I love the ICE, love to hear it roar under the hood
Me too! I know maybe in 20-30 years' time we will all be driving silent electric cars but really, where's the fun in that? As long as we can make the ICE reasonably economical with low pollution, let's keep it!
Quote:
...if the president stood up, and did the very unpopular, and some believe unachievable thing of mandating serious milage improvements in all domestic vehicles within so many years, that we could free our country of our dependance on Saudi oil
Quite so. Given the instability in the Middle East, in my view America would be better off investing in fuel economy technology rather than expensive wars in order to secure oil supplies. But that's politics not engineering, so feel free to tell me I am talking out of my ass!
Quote:
I notice they are already calling it the "Super Gas Saver"...
I believe that's what Mr Planas called it when he first invented it. He's been fiercely criticised for the meaningless "Turbo Charger" name so perhaps he is just going back to the original.
Good talking to you, Mr LoneInventor. Happy inventing to you and all other readers!
Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Oregon, USA
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:37 am Post subject:
Quote:
Quote:
Also in today's world there is always someone trying to rip you off in one way or another
Sadly this is all too true. It also means that industry is not very receptive to new ideas from "lone inventors", however good they may be, because we have seen so many scams in the past.
That's truly unfortunate. I hope the frequency of actual, useful innovation improves significantly in the years to come.
Quote:
The crank and valves were lubricated with normal oil but care was taken to keep this away from the cylinder since, as you say, it would affect vision.
I imagine you either blocked, or did not make in the first place the oil galleys in the heads and so forth circulate to the pan, and maybe even had a second pump from an olive oil reservoir? Facinating.
Quote:
These engines were a complete pain in the butt, as you can imagine, but absolutely unbeatable for understanding what goes on.
I bet! Not exactly a plant for the grocery getter. Still, has to be a neat deal to see run I would think.
Quote:
Me too! I know maybe in 20-30 years' time we will all be driving silent electric cars but really, where's the fun in that? As long as we can make the ICE reasonably economical with low pollution, let's keep it!
I really hope we see more innovation in both of those areas. I don't think you'll ever make anyone a real fan of electric horses until you are able to deliver the wattage required to push 800-1200 hp out from under the hood. Then you would be able to burn rubber until you hit wheel, but it seems pretty unthinkable right now. That kind of wattage has yet to be represented in any EV project I've seen.
The lower the pollution, and the higher the efficiency of the ICE, the happier I am. I do believe that you are right, we won't be seeing the last of this technology for a long time. And that may be for the better, as I like yourself love to hear that dang thing roar. May sound crazy to some, but if you have never heard 700+ hp trying to escape from behind your grill, then to you it probably is!
I would also certainly hope that science can help relieve us of the problems that our engines have caused us. Most of the damage seems to come from poor planning, and ignorance. Leaded fuel comes to mind, however I heard a news story a few months ago about how Greece had finally switched thier fuel supply over to unleaded, and many people were experiencing resporitory and other medical problems as a result of it. Strange to say the least, but I guess the additive(s) that replaced the lead are harmful at some level as well.
It may help some readers to be reminded that gas AND electric power plants are equally responsible for negative effects on the environment. That electricity isn't "free" either. Depending on what method is being used to produce it, it could pollute much more than a comparative amount of gasoline. Coal fired power plants for instance.
Quote:
Quote:
...if the president stood up, and did the very unpopular, and some believe unachievable thing of mandating serious milage improvements in all domestic vehicles within so many years, that we could free our country of our dependance on Saudi oil
Quite so. Given the instability in the Middle East, in my view America would be better off investing in fuel economy technology rather than expensive wars in order to secure oil supplies. But that's politics not engineering, so feel free to tell me I am talking out of my ass!
You've got my vote. Better fuel economy = a stronger economy. The fuel rates here in the US over the last couple of years have literally almost doubled. We are seeing inflation in the cost of our goods and services, because of the excess fuel cost acrued in the transport of those goods and services has to be payed for by someone, and yes it's going to be the consumer.
Quote:
I believe that's what Mr Planas called it when he first invented it. He's been fiercely criticised for the meaningless "Turbo Charger" name so perhaps he is just going back to the original.
That definately clears up confusion about the misleading name.
Quote:
Good talking to you, Mr LoneInventor. Happy inventing to you and all other readers!
Great talking to you as well, and thank you very much fuelsaving.info I certainly appreciate your posting and input on this subject.
Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Posts: 218 Location: Oregon, USA
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: Khaos Pictures
Hello ghosthunter, and welcome!
Thanks very much for the pictures of the Khaos Super Turbo charger, that's great. I have been curious about it for a while now. Not a whole lot to it is there?
I read your thread at www.tsikot.com located at the links you left, and read out to the end of the thread. Very interesting discussion going on there
I filled my MR2 up, recorded my odometer, went home and did the math. I calculated that I ended up at 26 miles per gallon (compared to 22-25 before). This is the first time I broke the 25 mpg mark since I started driving the car. Whoopee! a whole mile or 4% improvement without the idle tweak and I tried hard not to change my driving habits.
Note: Carburated engines can have their carbs adjusted to be leaner without the need of any third party device installed. Thats one of the tricks I know how some taxi drivers save money on their gasoline bill.
So, why spend P6500 instead of simply adjusting your carburetor? (Also pointed out on your thread.)
After thinking about this subject for quite a while now, and after reading through your thread, I am beginning to conclude that indeed, the device may be utterly bogus. However if that 4% increase in mileage that Gonzaldp is getting is average, and within the realm of not causing engine damage... It might not be such a bad thing.
Having said that though, I am starting to see the point that perhaps Both sides of the issue are very concerned with only money.
I am not talking about the people discussing it, of course their money matters to them, as it does to all of us. How can you justify spending $100+ bucks on something that doesn't work, and so therefore they are fully within their right as potential purchasers of this device to determine if indeed it is a worthwhile product. On the other side of the coin, if that $100+ bucks was a good investment, well it would be foolish to pass it up.
After seeing those pictures and reading your thread last night, I started running some numbers. Here in the US we use about 20.4 million barrels of oil per day. We import 12 million of those barrels. Those barrels of oil cost us about $50 a pop right now... That equals $1,020,000,000 Per Day! that we spend on fuel.
Only 9.22 million barrels per day go toward gasoline, so I'll figure for just that. At 9.22 million bbl/d at $50 a piece is $461,000,000, again per day, spent on gasoline alone. Now a 4% increase in overall mileage might not seem significant, and in fact I wouldn't spend over a hundred dollars to obtain an extra %4, however if you stretch that out across just my country, we would be saving an average of $18,440,000 per day in cost, and I can see as how that would make many an oil man nervous.
What the buyer saves, the seller looses, in this case a loss of about $6,564,640,000 per year with a savings of only 4% in fuel efficiency.
On the other hand of course, Planas and Inventionhaus are earning a large return from their product sales as well, and if there isn't much of a case for the legitimate functioning of it, well...
Lousy money, greed etc. anyway!
I am certainly still waiting for a definite increase in fuel efficiency, and will await that with open arms. Let's hope that happens soon.
Thanks again for the Khaos pictures ghosthunter, and for your objective investigation into the device on you site. We do appreciate it. If you have any further information, good or bad, please keep us posted.
Here's a rather surprising move by the same people who brought to you the Khaos thingie...
(Note: I am just reposting the article. I do not support the product.)
Pinoy’s gas-saving invention now used in motorcycles
The Philippine Star 03/12/2005
A new anti-pollutant device designed exclusively for motorcycles was launched Thursday, offering a new lease on life for two-stroke engines that have difficulty meeting emission standards set by the Clean Air Act.
Inventionhaus International Corp. said in a statement that the device, called the Khaos super turbocharger for motorcycles, can save up to 30 percent of fuel and lower carbon monoxide emission rates to 0.8 percent per volume, or a vehicle’s total exhaust volume.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1999, the acceptable level set for carbon monoxide emission by motor vehicles is set at 4.5 percent per volume.
The device is based on an earlier version made for gasoline engines by Filipino inventor Pablo Planas, who said he is optimistic that his new invention will benefit millions of motorcycle and tricycle owners throughout the country.
The launch of the Khaos super turbocharger for motorcycles, held at the Manila Yacht Club on Roxas Boulevard, coincided with the celebration of Planas’ 68th birthday. The event was attended by Senate President Franklin Drilon and Manila Mayor Lito Atienza.
"This is an opportunity for us to look for a solution on how to save gas," Drilon said.
Atienza, on the other hand, said he is "endorsing this Filipino invention because it not only saves on gasoline but is environment-friendly."
According to the website of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), there are approximately 900,000 motorcycles nationwide, with some 180,000 in Metro Manila alone.
The EMB said emission tests conducted on tricycles showed that their average hydrocarbon emissions were 6,000 ppm (parts per million) or 10 times above the acceptable standard for cars.
"Two-stroke tricycle engines have lower fuel efficiency. Some 15 percent to 40 percent of their fuel-air mixture escapes through the exhaust port. Because of this, the unburned gasoline and lubricant they emit contribute to increased hydrocarbon and fine particulate emissions in the atmosphere," the EMB said.
Tricycle operators and drivers had rallied against the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority Resolution No. 02-36, which urged Metro Manila mayors to stop granting new franchises to two-stroke vehicles. They were also against the mandatory emission testing, prior to vehicle registration, required by the Clean Air Act.
Section 22 of this law states that "no motor vehicle registration shall be issued unless such motor vehicle passes the emission testing requirement promulgated in accordance with this Act."
The Clean Air Act’s implementing rules and regulations stipulate that "carbon monoxide emission of in-use motorcycles (two- and four-stroke) should not exceed six percent of the engine’s total exhaust volume during idle state."
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) earlier said that two-stroke engines, which constitute 95 percent of tricycles in Metro Manila, are less expensive because of their uncomplicated design and because they have fewer parts to maintain. However, they were found to produce substantial amounts of hydrocarbons, which contribute to the smog that causes air pollution.
Four-stroke engines, on the other hand, have a higher combustion temperature and emit only well-burned gases that do not contribute as much to air pollution. These engines cost at least P5,000 more than the two-stroke motorcycles, according to the DENR.
In 2002, the Metro Manila Council, with the mayors of 17 cities and municipalities as members, passed a resolution urging local government units to temporarily stop granting new franchises to two-stroke tricycles by 2003 to address air pollution.
Then DENR Secretary Elisea Gozun said they would formulate a plan to provide financial support to small and independent tricycle and jeepney operators to enable them to comply with the Clean Air Act. _________________ www.tsikot.com
Interact
Information
Members
Welcome,
Login:
Membership:
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in
that of course makes my day. Yes the auto industry definately needs and frequently uses inventors to help them sell better products. Mostly safety lately, but that's still a great thing.
