'Fuel cat', snake oil?

That's proving a negative. They haven't got a mechanism explaining how they do work, so expending effort empirically proving they don't would seem pointless. They also have a total lack of evidence showing they do anything at all, that's why they've lost all the asa adjudications.

Because the ASAs maximum penalty is to tell them not to do it again.

The catalyst could reduce the energy requirements to below the levels supplied by the thermal energy present due to the temperature of the surroundings. I do agree that most of the time it just makes the reaction easier meaning it needs less heating/pressure/whatever than normal, but not all the time. Then again, there`s still no way I`d buy this stuff :-)

Even if it did remove the initial barrier there's still the other bit, which is what are the end products and what's in it for the molecules to change to them? Oxidation - end products CO2, water, lots of energy released. With the "fuel catalyst" what's the equivalent?

(and that's a very theoretical "could reduce the energy requirements" - in real life for this sort of thing, no way)

I'm not sure I understand that sentence. I'd say a catalyst works that way all the time. Less heat/pressure/whatever could be as far as "no extra required".

cheers, clive

Thanks for that, and although interesting seems to focus on products that supposedly increase performance / efficiency etc rather than 'modify' the fuel to make it behave slightly differently?

All the best ..

T i m

Of course, and the very person I was waiting for ;-)

Mostly. There are products out there that do what they say on the tin though?

With most of these things, especially if they are demo'd at an exhibition / show etc I'm the one at the back, taking it all in, looking for the catches. I have bought various things this way over the years and am pleased to say I have used them all. A couple of recent ones were 'Lumiweld' (currently holding the electric fan switch in the top of a modified thermostat housing) and a very strong 'Super Glue'. Neither were 'expensive' and the results were demonstrated right in front of me.

Fair enough. But there are 'passive' components that can have a positive effect .. like sacrificial anodes on ships hulls?

Ok ..

Well no, but there *could* be other variables that mean the 'pills' process isn't suitable .. like speed etc (I'm not saying there are, just playing devils advocate etc).

All the best ..

T i m

So are you saying there *could* be some real world circumstances where these could do *something* Simon? (sorry, I'm not a scientist).

Well likewise, just interested to hear if they could actually work?

As with most things the 'bottom line' is that there are no short cuts, you do the job properly etc etc. Like if yer rad is leaking you get it professionally repaired or replace it. However, if the car only needs to last another couple of months, Radweld might be worth a go (and I have done on more than one occasion). ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

There's a clue in thw word sacrificial ;-)

Glue - either works or it doesn't. Dead easy to demonstrate that it does. You'll have probably paid a little over the odds buying it at such a show, but since it's quite cheap to start with, this won't be a massive problem.

Sacrificial anodes on ships hulls aren't passive. They work like a battery. Indeed you can have the same effect by applying a suitable voltage - a technique used when doing marine constructions.

If it was too slow for them, it would be too slow for your tank.

I think you should be getting to the point where you realise your devils advocacy is struggling. You should also try applying some psychology to what we're saying.

What do we have to gain by nay-saying these products? Nothing more than intellectual satisfaction. What do the promoters have to gain? Money. Which of us is more likely to be lying?

cheers, clive

Or might at first then fail as it gets hot / cold / wet ... ;-(

See above ..

Indeed. The 'best' all round super glue I've bought of late was from a double glazing supplier and 99p / large bottle. ;-)

Where do you put the batteries in .. or apply the crystals? ;-)

I know, but the point I was making is to 'most people' the purpose of a sacrificial anode ... the effects of the salt water and a cocktail of metals wouldn't be obvious and / or even difficult to comprehend if explained to them.

Well I'll have to take your word for that. To me the use seems to be in opposition. The fuel supplier is trying to make the stuff as fast as possible and the user want's it to stay in the tank as long as possible?

I think I knew that to be the case at the outset .. I just wanted some 'proof' either way. ;-)

Hey, that's head stuff, I'm a hands on guy .. ;-)

I'm not arguing with anyone here Clive, simply trying to find some facts.

Fair enough ..

Or plenty of publicity on Watchdog etc?

With all due respect I would have to see the counter evidence from an independent source, with specific responses to specific 'claims' made of the product. You (and others here) may already have done this but because I'm not a scientist I have no way of deciding what is what.

However, I wouldn't put any money on it not being all it's hyped up to be ... ;-)

All the best .. and thanks again ..

T i m

Yes - technology being indisinguishable from magic if you don't know enough.

Make what stuff? You need to know what the end products are. But wait - the vendors won't tell you that. Why not? Would it be because they know they're writing nonsense?

Trouble is, we're just anonymous writers on the internet. There's no way we can provide rigorous proof here. You're asking for something which cannot be provided.

I'm trying to help you here. It was a rhetorical question. Think about it, and think about the answer.

And what does the publicity on Watchdog get them? A career as a TV presenter? A visit to the local courts? You're avoiding the obvious - they're in it for the money.

If you wanted a rigorous proof, yes, you'd need that. However if you think about what people are saying, and why they're saying them, you can make a pretty good guess as to where the truth lies.

Think about these products : Are they in mainstream use? If they're so great, why doesn't everybody use them - eg the manufacturers of cars?

(A common answer to this is "it's a conspiracy by the big companies". But a little thought would debunk that one - there's more than one "big company", so any of them has a massive incentive to use such a thing as this - there's money to be had).

Have you ever heard of "Occam's Razor"? It's the idea that the simplest answer is often the right one. Try applying it to the issues we're discussing.

cheers, clive

You would? why can't you just decide for yourself? what if I told you I had a small portable black hole and used the gravational pull of it to move my car along without using any fuel, would you belive me? or would you,

"have to see the counter evidence from an independent source, with specific responses to specific 'claims' made of the product."

Fuel (he's a fuel supplier) ;-)

But in theory we could get close? If we had any chemical / scientific facts as presented by the purveyor of product X then mightn't we get several people, knowledgeable in said field demonstrating (via formulae / chemical cleverness one assumes) why it won't / can't do what was proposed?

Well, this is a discussion group .. ;-)

I'm not (intentionally) avoiding anything, just running a flag up the flagpole ... ?

Well I think you could apply that to many subjects and salespersons though, isn't that what they do? And there are probably just as many members of the general public who have their idea of the truth (even though they may be 99% incorrect).

Well, there could be many answers to that. Do all manufacturers fit silicon hydraulic fluid in their vehicles? (I'm assuming it's good of course, could be wrong etc).

Again, you are probably right Clive.

I hadn't but Wiki had ;-)

I understand what you are saying Clive and I have never tried to endorse any product here, but without any direct scientific answers forgive me for not taking the first 'they don't work' reply as being 'the' answer (even though I suspected that was the actual case from the off).

All the best ...

T i m

Because let's just assume they really did work, or only worked in very specific applications but the cynical world had not bothered to try them ..?

Well, I wouldn't because I believe I know enough about 'black holes' to understand that what you are suggesting is highly unlikely. If you presented me a chemical equation proving black was white I would probably go along with it but maybe seek confirmation elsewhere before I parted with any cash etc.

At the kitcar show there was a craft fair and a stall selling clever little 'machines' using magnetic fields to support propellers and hidden coils and batteries to make things move etc.

The stall holder rattled off a list of theories as offered by various punters re how these things worked, all potentially plausible as long as you didn't know about perpetual motion.

During my many years driving an EV you would be surprised the number of times it has been suggested to me to fix a dynamo to the road wheels so I could charge the thing whilst I drive along .... ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

I'd have to answer that one on a case-by-case basis. Tell us what the purveyor of product X claims, and I'll see what I can tell you. If it's anything like the normal claims though, the answer will be that they're just spouting impressive-sounding words without any science behind them. Typically they don't actually present any chemical/scientific facts.

Yup. Eg salesmen saying "Sign today and I'll get you a better discount". Gillian McKeith. You know advertising isn't there to tell the truth, but to present a point of view.

My car has mineral oil hydraulic fluid :-)

No idea if DOT 5 (silicon) brake fluid has any significant advantages. I'm guessing not, since normal brake fluid apparently works just fine. So if there's no advantage, there's the answer to why it's not fitted.

Present a direct scientific question and you stand a chance of getting a direct scientific answer. The claims made by the snake oil salesmen aren't scientific.

This is usenet, in some ways the badlands of the internet, where all sorts of tripe gets spouted. (though here is probably quite a good place, unlike say alt.*). You should apply a healthy dose of scepticism to anything you read here - just as you should to any salesman's claims. Heck, how do you know I'm not an agent of "big oil" sent to ensure the secret of the fuel catalyst remains under wraps, thus safeguarding my employer's profits? :-)

You need to be able to assess sources of information. One way to do this is to consider where the information has come from, and what's the motive of the presenter. If it's to make them money, I'd start distrusting it straight away - unless that source has earned the trust. If it's to push a pet theory, I'd be even more distrusting. If it's both, as eg these fuel catalyst people's is, time to run away!

cheers, clive

Conveniently they neglect to mention what their miracle product actually does.

Probably for the same reason it's banned in most race events, it doesn't absorb water. And you can achieve the same boiling points with dot5.1.

All these peddlers of snake oil products always have 'proof' of this sort. Which never stands close scrutiny. Do a Google on 'fuel catalysts' - you'll find plenty of evidence about the con they are. At least one company selling them has been prosecuted under the Trades Description Act.

Ok ..

Will do ..

That was one of my questions. Thanks Dave.

All the best ..

T i m

I must admit I haven't actually had chance to go through the assortment of brochures, cards and pamphlets I have in my bag. If they did actually print any 'claims' I'll let you know.

Oooerr, I though that would be a good point Duncan?

Ah ha .. so that's why ;-)

All the best ..

T i m