For those of you who can't tell the difference between hard science and pseudo-science, don't waste your time visiting this link. For those who can, there is enough hard science here to be very interesting. My quotation has been acknowledged as being "in process". Here's the link:

PICC

 

damn, looking at that website made me feel like i was watching an infomercial. i call snake oil. the website is wayyyy too vague and doesnt really explain anything. other than it saves you money. good sales pitch, most likely not a good product.
hahaha

i enjoy hard-pseudo science. sounds like a porno movie haha.

 

I'm not going to write it off as a giant scam just yet, let's wait and see some reviews from independent automotive web sites.

 

SCAM

only had to watch 30 seconds of the video to have it prove itself and garbage

at about 2:40 he says "hope you never put sugar in anybody's gas tank....it would freeze up the engine right there and then"


that is a myth, has no effect, as sugar does not dissolve in gasoline and just sits at the bottom of the tank
also when they attach the jar of "fuel" , you'll notice that the fuel lines that actually go to the engine are over a foot long, and jet it starts on the first pull, this is because the lines are already filled with plain gasoline, and that is what it is running on, the crap in the jar never reaches the engine because there is so much volume of fuel in the lines

there is so little gasoline that does not burn even if you could somehow save it, it would not add up to anything, this idea is merely ripping off an exsisting technology, EGR, which routes exhaust back into the engine, but NOT for fuel efficency, its purpose is to lower combustion chamber temperature, to lower NOx

i have said this before, is ANYTHING could increase the MPG even 1 mpg, the automakers would do it, they spend billions, literally, on r&d to eek out efficency, so you can distrust everything you see claiming "get 50 more mpg and 50 more HP"

lol...this is great, (still in the process of watching it..) their test for "pollution" is holding a white rag near the exhaust...awesome

..and please, please....don't put water in your car....

the video is playing at peoples ignorance

as a master tech, i do love watching this crap, but can only hope that people do not fall for it, ..though they will,
from the gas magnet, to the "tornado" , this is the next in line....
please do not buy one.

 

I will post the details of my "in process" quotation for the device.

 

aaaaahhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!
thats like reading tabloids about the B2 found flying on the moon, AND
BAT BOY!!!!
hahaahaaaaa!!!!

St. Elmo's Fire i heard is going to make a comback via new turbo set ups!

I can almost hear a Budwiser commercial in the background....
"real men of genius"

 

I am not a scientist, but a few lines from here have my dogs barking This is not the PICC product, but they are claiming right below this product gives you 50% more mileage.

Der..... what?
Secondly, come on.... magnets.... again?

 

But they are "POWERFUL" magnets! so its totally legit! hahahaaa

 

Dave I'm surprised at you SCAM with capitol "S" don't bother waiting for reply.

 

oooo...oooo but it might be really funny...
but most likely you will never hear from em.....booooo

 

i just glanced through the linked webpage and just because they spend so much effort trying to convince you that it's real, i'd have to guess it's fake. they throw around lots of "really," "guarantees," and lots and lots of exclamation marks. just seems like the kinda stuff a company would be doing to persuade buyers. if it really worked then we wouldn't need persuading. that's what i think.

 

The "quotation" will clinch the SCAM identification. As with all of the crooked info-mercials, there is a lot of fact in this web site. The facts are easy to combine with bs in the marketing of junk. I want to see what size of fortune is being asked for with this hardware.

However, this thread attracted a lot of bs from the uneducated, as I suspected that it would. It is possible to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water. H1 and O2 would be much more combustible than gasoline, under the right conditions, but could generate enough energy to melt metal. That's the reasoning behind the less expensive and currently available part of this system.

The second part- the cat replacement, operates on a real phenomenon- plasma- the fourth state of matter. NONE of you watched all of each video, and set aside the bs comments of the actor they hired to read the tech. details. I did. Plasma is easily created. It does generate the heat of the sun. I worked with plasma generators for 7 years, and used it to melt all and every metal in existence, as well as all forms of metallic oxide ceramics.

All of this stuff has a basis in fact. All of you who took a 10 second look and laughed just show your lack of education---- just as I knew that you would.

However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that these systems do what they claim, or justify the sales price. I am interested enough to get ALL of the available information. The ignorant and uneducated will stay that way because that is human nature. Lucky that you have so much company.

 

Well for the record I never disputed or laughed at the first part, however I was pointing out the reference to the magnets to ionize the fuel in the second currently availaible option. This part has been proved time and time again to be a myth...

...also I don't understand how they separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water and then put them back together without a loss of energy? Yes it is possible, but the energy you put into the process it more than you will get out.

Finally, I believe it is estiamted that gasoline engines are around 60% efficient (could be even higher now with new technologies)... other losses through your drivetrain would occur regardless of how efficent your engine is so we could take that right out of the factors.... so how are they making engines 500% more efficent exactly if they are already using 60% of the availaible energy in the fuel? Where does the energy come from?

 

Hey- all of you "Flat Earth Society" fitfreaks who think you know internal combustion engine technology- here's a question for you.

How long could a 600 hp. supercharged diesel engine run with absolutely zero lubricating oil in the crankcase and absolutely zero coolant being pumped through the block? What would the eventual damage be to the engine block, heads, crankshaft, valves, bearings?

Come on- show your vast knowledge and years of experience, and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Show me what you "know".

 

Relax Sugarphreak-
I'm not going after specific posters. See if you can answer my last question. And you are wrong in some of your assumptions.

 

No worries, I will be the first to admit my post is mostly questions and loosely based assumptions. I know you were discouraging that in your OP, but I was hoping to initate some constructive discussions around it. If they are recovering so much energy ligitimatly I am always interested to learn the science behind it.

I can't answer your last question with confidence but I would assume that with no coolent and or lubricant in it; it would last longer than a gasoline engine by nature of how they operate, however not too much longer before the heat would melt down the sleeves and cause the engine to sieze up. The sleeves are replaceable so not too much damage to the block, the heads would be damaged as would some of the valves and bearings would be in bad shape from the heat, however I think the crank would actually survive as well. Close?

 

You'll have to wait until we hear from some the smatasses.

 

"Equal chance"? Zero chance. Obvious bullshit, obvious scam.

 

well manxman it seems you think pretty highly of your intelligence and have figured out a lot of the science behind this company's claim. maybe i was wrong in thinking that i had a pretty good educational background now that you've pointed out i am a certain combination of "ignorant" and "uneducated."

i admit i really didn't look through the website thoroughly but that is because by the way things are put together on there, i didn't think it was necessary to read about the science behind their claims. I have seen some friends invest in selling gimmicks similar to this, and they followed the same strategy. they had brochures and published scientific data backing their product's effectiveness but really it was just making nonsensible deductions like, "a brick is red, and red is a color, so a brick is a color."

this product just conveyed the typical attitude of a scam/gimmick. maybe i was wrong, but i assumed that if they wanted to publish a new finding, it would be written in a completely different way. but i don't appreciate your name-calling and self righteousness. also, i would like to point out that all scams and gimmicks have "a basis in fact." that's what makes them believable..and they often spew a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo to confuse the more investigative and self-labeled "educated" consumers.

 

What is obvious is your own lack of education in chemistry and physics.
Why do batteries using lead, sulfuric acid, and water blow up? (that means "explode into flames"). Is lead flammable? How about the acid? Does water burn? Why do electric water heaters explode and burn down houses?

Is nitrogen flammable? Is argon flammable? Sorry, I don't want this to hurt too much. The answer is no. But I can combine either or both of those inert gases with some electricity and create an ionized gas cloud that produces a temperature of 10,000 degrees F. By adding some hydrogen or helium, I can generate 12,000 degrees of heat and enough ultraviolet radiation to cook your skin off standing 2 feet away.