MPG - Caps

[24KT]

In the interest of not allowing Avxo to derail yet another thread, here is my response.

But ya, I sold mpg caplets... what of it? I saved a fortune in fuel costs, ...and so did  the truckers I sold them to. In some cases, ...it made the difference between many of these guys staying in business or parking their rigs. I even had one guy who I was able to help knock $68,000 off his annual fuel costs. An extra $68,000 added to your bottom line in a year goes a long way. He was even able to get his 2nd rig back on the road. Those mpg caplets also saved many others from having to endure costly mechanic fees in order to pass emissions testing. I make no apologies for that. Infact, I'm rather proud of that actually.

There's nothing wrong with it - provided the things worked. Can you explain to us how they do? By what means did they improve fuel efficiency? The "testimonials" you cite are all well and good - but also worthless. There's people who claim sticking magnets in the fuel line improves their MPG too. They're all over youtube. In fact (and I'm ashamed to admit this) I know one person who swears by it.

How are your gas pills different from magnets? Specifically. If you can't explain the underlying mechanism by which they work, or point to someone who can, then I submit that your gas pills are a scam, no different than magnets in the fuel life.

Why do you constantly insist upon comparing apples to oranges?

You speak with disparaging mockery about things you clearly know nothing about.

Is it out of some desire to try to convince others how knowledgeable you are, ...or to convince yourself?

It doesn't make you look smarter, it just makes you look like an insecure ass.

The mpg-caplets have nothing to do with magnets. They are based upon Nobel prize winning organo-metallic chemistry.

See: Wilkinson's catalyst  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson%27s_catalyst

Essentially, the caplets, once mixed with the fuel, speeds up the in cylinder shape and burn-rate of the fuel, resulting in a faster fuel burn, during the downward stroke of the piston, resulting in a more complete burn, more power to the engine, more miles per gallon, and reduced emissions. The fuel is completely burned inside the combustion chamber, rather than still burning as it exits the exhaust (as is the case with most engines)

The result is that every drop of fuel put into your tank gets burned to power you further down the road, unlike the present state of affairs where some of the fuel is burning out the exhaust resulting in smog causing emissions.

Bottom Line: Reduced fuel costs, ...more miles per gallon, ...reduced emissions.


The World's #1 authority on combustion was initially skeptical about the product when it was first presented to him by my friend Earl, ...so much so that he set out to prove the product was bogus. After spending over $250,000 of his own money in a vain attempt to prove the product didn't work, he not only discovered that it worked, he discovered it worked even better than we had claimed.

He went from being a critic, to one of our most vocal supporters.


Why pills did not work by Jerry Lang (mobil consultant)

MPG Caps on CNN & Bravo

Jerry Lang Explains How The MPG Caps Work

Solution For Escalating Fuel Prices

Jerry Lang has more than 45 years of combustion experience and a strong background in refining processes. As the owner and operator of Jerry Lang Combustion Consulting, he is currently designing and overseeing combustion projects for four refineries, including efforts to lower emissions and improve efficiencies.

Mr. Lang has served as a combustion consultant to virtually all of the major oil companies and 95% of the refineries, including ChevronTexaco, Chevron Phillips, ARCO, Shell, Kraft, Exxon, Mobil, and Dow Chemical. At Exxon, Mr. Lang developed ways to improve efficiency by retrofitting the tankers of the company. He also served as the combustion auditor to Chevron on their Richmond Nitrous Oxide (Nox) Reduction Project, worth in excess of $300 million. In addition, Mr. Lang has completed projects in Norway and is currently contributing to an ongoing project in Qatar.

In 1967, Mr. Lang established his own business where he developed and patented several products related to combustion and incineration. He also served as Manager of Combustion Systems for Howe Baker Engineers where he helped develop ways to improve refining operations. Mr. Lang was also recruited by Dr. Edward Teller, the primary developer of the hydrogen bomb, for four years on an alternate fuels project doing combustion tests.

Mr. Lang has extensive experience designing equipment utilized in reducing emissions from stationary sources such as refineries, power plants, and industrial operations. He also contributed to the development of the equipment used during the clean up of the Alaska oil spill. Over the years he has also done work on systems to improve mileage in automobiles, such as installing a vaporizer in the exhaust to vaporize the gasoline prior to intake and working on steam injection in automobiles.

He holds 19 patents to his name - 13 of which specifically combustion related. Over $1 BILLION dollars of his patented technologies have been sold some of which include standard equipment in most automobiles today

This is a man who knows combustion! He's also seen alot of things come & go over the years all claiming to improve mileage or reduce emissions. Infact, no one was more skeptical about the FFi products than Jerry Lang. So you know what he did? He decided to test this product and prove once & for all, that the product didn't work. He spent alot of time and about a quarter of a million dollars of his own money trying to prove the product didn't work.

He found that not only did the product work, ...he discovered it worked even better than we claimed.

Through his knowledge & expertise in the area of combustion he was able to understand our product even better than we did, and as a result, be able to educate us and our consumers about how to get the most out of this product. He went from one of our biggest skeptics to one of our biggest advocates. He now travels the world preaching the gospel of this catalyst, to governments and industry about the efficacy of our products

[avxo]

Nice try but let me point out a few things: The notion that stuff is still burning when exiting the chamber is bogus on any relative modern vehicle with computer-controlled ignition and sensors with fancy names. The computer adjusts the air-fuel ratio dynamically to ensure as complete a burn as is possible, and a pill won't change that. A more energetic reaction is possible - but it requires extra oxygen.

Which brings us to the pills... Wilkinson's Catalyst doesn't help. You tell us how these pils are based on organo-metallic chemistry. Perhaps they are. Do you know anything about organo-metallic chemistry? I'm asking because I know a little bit.

You see, Wilkinson's catalyst added to gasoline won't introduce extra oxygen or catalyze gasoline to make it burn any better. It could cause gasoline to gain extra hydrogen molecules, but it's unclear how those help in a combustion environment. Can you, perhaps, get Mr. Lang to explain specifically how it helps, preferably with equations? Surely the combustion expert who tested this and was impressed by it researched it and would have no problem going into details. For the record, fancy videos showing air-fuel mixture burning in the exhaust manifolds isn't "going into details."

Something else as well: even if this does work, you would require quite a large amount of catalyst per gallon of gasoline, and Wilkinson's Catalyst contains Rhodium – which you, as someone involved in the precious metals industry will immediately recognize. Rhodium costs over $1000 per ounce, which is well over $65 per gram. How much Rhodium does the pill contain?

What are the ingredients of the pill, aside from Wilkinson's Catalyst?

P.S.: I've done computational chemistry before... I'll know if "Jerry Lang" spouts bullshit.

[24KT]

Nice try but let me point out a few things: The notion that stuff is still burning when exiting the chamber is bogus on any relative modern vehicle with computer-controlled ignition and sensors with fancy names. The computer adjusts the air-fuel ratio dynamically to ensure as complete a burn as is possible, and a pill won't change that. A more energetic reaction is possible - but it requires extra oxygen.

Fuel does infact burn while going out the exhaust. What do you think is producing the flames coming out of the back of race cars? That's not for fancy special FX. That's fuel burning. Why do you think exhaust pipes get hot? What the sensors do is to read the amount of unburned hydrocarbons, a calculation vehicle manufacturers expect to be there, and infact program into the mechanisms to make adjustments for.

Modern vehicles initially proved to be especially problematic for us because of the built-in compensation for these expected inefficiences. What we discovered was that as the fuel burned more efficiently, the sensors weren't reading the emissions they were expecting, and as a result interpreted that as not enough fuel going to the engine, which inadvertently resulted in more fuel being injected, and a loss of fuel efficiency... Jerry helped us to understand this, and overcome it.  

Which brings us to the pills... Wilkinson's Catalyst doesn't help. You tell us how these pils are based on organo-metallic chemistry. Perhaps they are. Do you know anything about organo-metallic chemistry? I'm asking because I know a little bit.

I don't need to know how organo metallic chemistry works to get results with the product, ...and neither do any of the users of the product. If they can follow dosage instructions, they get the results they're looking for, ...just like I don't need to know about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air in order to get the result I'm looking for. If I know how to flip the ON switch and change channels that's all that's required. Does the TV turn on when I want it to, and change channels when I want? That's all I need. And what we discovered is the vast majority of mpg-cap users don't care how it works, they're just happy to reap the increased mileage, reduced fuel & maintenance costs, and extended engine life.

You see, Wilkinson's catalyst added to gasoline won't introduce extra oxygen or catalyze gasoline to make it burn any better. It could cause gasoline to gain extra hydrogen molecules, but it's unclear how those help in a combustion environment. Can you, perhaps, get Mr. Lang to explain specifically how it helps, preferably with equations? Surely the combustion expert who tested this and was impressed by it researched it and would have no problem going into details. For the record, fancy videos showing air-fuel mixture burning in the exhaust manifolds isn't "going into details."

That is why the product is not considered a "fuel-additive" by legal definition. The fuel simply acts as a carrier to bring the ingredients to the engine, wherein, it lays down a nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating. The product works on the engine itself, and makes it a more efficient power plant for want of a better analogy. It's not a fuel catalyst, ...it's an engine catalyst.

Something else as well: even if this does work, you would require quite a large amount of catalyst per gallon of gasoline, and Wilkinson's Catalyst contains Rhodium – which you, as someone involved in the precious metals industry will immediately recognize. Rhodium costs over $1000 per ounce, which is well over $65 per gram. How much Rhodium does the pill contain?

We've found that less is more with this product. We often started with a base of 1 gram per every 60 US gallons, then tweaking amounts slightly up or down to find each particular vehicle's sweet spot. We've found that using more is simply a waste of both money & product, and in fact produces the opposite effect of reducing mileage.

P.S.: I've done computational chemistry before... I'll know if "Jerry Lang" spouts bullshit.

"You'll know if Jerry Lang spouts bullshit?  Oh puleaze!    


This is a man who is on retainer by every major oil refinery in the world... recruited by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, the #1 combustion expert in the world, ...and you think that armed with some theoretical computation derived from a class taken in one semester at college is enough to challenge him and his real world hands-on experience all over the world?

He's probably forgotten more about combustion than you will EVER know. Stop trying to look like a know-it-all. You're only coming off as an insecure jerk, about 7.5 yrs late to this party. All this has already been previously well explained ad infinitum

I'm not about to waste a second of Jerry's time to get him to discuss a thing with you. One of Jerry's favourite sayings is "Never argue with idiots. They'll just bring you down to their level, then beat you with their experience." And after hearing it for years from Jerry's lips, ...I'm gonna take his advice.

[avxo]

Fuel does infact burn while going out the exhaust. What do you think is producing the flames coming out of the back of race cars? That's not for fancy special FX.

Right - but that's race cars, and then only some kinds or race cars, which can run upwards of 80% nitromethane mixtures and other weird and exotic mixes of fuel.

That's fuel burning.

Please point us to one properly tuned vehicle manufactured in the last twenty years that has flames coming out of the exhaust or which, demonstrably has unburned fuel igniting in the exhaust manifolds.

Why do you think exhaust pipes get hot?

Oh, I don't know... maybe because they contain the hot gas that is the by-product of combustion?

What the sensors do is to read the amount of unburned hydrocarbons, a calculation vehicle manufacturers expect to be there, and infact program into the mechanisms to make adjustments for.

There are many sensors which measure many things. But the sensors used in the exhaust system measure the O₂ content and adjust the air-fuel mixture accordingly.

Modern vehicles initially proved to be especially problematic for us because of the built-in compensation for these expected inefficiences.

Citation needed.

What we discovered was that as the fuel burned more efficiently, the sensors weren't reading the emissions they were expecting, and as a result interpreted that as not enough fuel going to the engine, which inadvertently resulted in more fuel being injected, and a loss of fuel efficiency... Jerry helped us to understand this, and overcome it.

Cars out there routinely produce 100hp per liter of displacement. Cars out thereroutinely get upwards of 40mpg. They have stratified charge engines; some are naturally aspirated and some are not. They have computers which read the sensors and, based on a model of the engine and all the data, adjust the running parameters hundreds or maybe thousands of times a seconds to squeeze as much performance and efficiency.

And yet, you discovered that all these cars have fundamental issues with these systems, issues which nobody knew about (or which everybody who did know, hid). What a fucking joke.

And one more thing, who's "we"? Are you now an automotive engineer too in addition to a financial consultant? The fact is you didn't discover shit and the stuff you spout is nonsensical. What incentive, if any, do manufacturers of automobiles have to produce engines that suboptimally burn fuel, reducing engine efficiency and performance in a market that is highly competitive?
 

I don't need to know how organo metallic chemistry works to get results with the product

No, you don't. But if you're going to try to talk organo-metallic chemistry and tell us about Wilkinson's Catalyst, you probably should.

, ...and neither do any of the users of the product. If they can follow dosage instructions, they get the results they're looking for

Do they? Can you give us an example of the dosing instructions? I'm curious to see how I would calculate the amount of pills I need to drop in my gas tank.

...just like I don't need to know about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air in order to get the result I'm looking for. If I know how to flip the ON switch and change channels that's all that's required. Does the TV turn on when I want it to, and change channels when I want? That's all I need.

That's certainly true, but that's not a good example. The good example would be if you didn't know anything about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air but that you "discovered" a fun

Fuel does infact burn while going out the exhaust. What do you think is producing the flames coming out of the back of race cars? That's not for fancy special FX.

Right - but that's race cars, and then only some kinds or race cars, which can run upwards of 80% nitromethane mixtures and other weird and exotic mixes of fuel.

That's fuel burning.

Please point us to one properly tuned vehicle manufactured in the last twenty years that has flames coming out of the exhaust or which, demonstrably has unburned fuel igniting in the exhaust manifolds.

Why do you think exhaust pipes get hot?

Oh, I don't know... maybe because they contain the hot gas that is the by-product of combustion?

What the sensors do is to read the amount of unburned hydrocarbons, a calculation vehicle manufacturers expect to be there, and infact program into the mechanisms to make adjustments for.

There are many sensors which measure many things. But the sensors used in the exhaust system measure the O₂ content and adjust the air-fuel mixture accordingly.

Modern vehicles initially proved to be especially problematic for us because of the built-in compensation for these expected inefficiences.

Citation needed.

What we discovered was that as the fuel burned more efficiently, the sensors weren't reading the emissions they were expecting, and as a result interpreted that as not enough fuel going to the engine, which inadvertently resulted in more fuel being injected, and a loss of fuel efficiency... Jerry helped us to understand this, and overcome it.

Cars out there routinely produce 100hp per liter of displacement. Cars out thereroutinely get upwards of 40mpg. They have stratified charge engines; some are naturally aspirated and some are not. They have computers which read the sensors and, based on a model of the engine and all the data, adjust the running parameters hundreds or maybe thousands of times a seconds to squeeze as much performance and efficiency.

And yet, you discovered that all these cars have fundamental issues with these systems, issues which nobody knew about (or which everybody who did know, hid). What a fucking joke.

And one more thing, who's "we"? Are you now an automotive engineer too in addition to a financial consultant? The fact is you didn't discover shit and the stuff you spout is nonsensical. What incentive, if any, do manufacturers of automobiles have to produce engines that suboptimally burn fuel, reducing engine efficiency and performance in a market that is highly competitive?
 

I don't need to know how organo metallic chemistry works to get results with the product

No, you don't. But if you're going to try to talk organo-metallic chemistry and tell us about Wilkinson's Catalyst, you probably should.

, ...and neither do any of the users of the product. If they can follow dosage instructions, they get the results they're looking for

Do they?

...just like I don't need to know about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air in order to get the result I'm looking for. If I know how to flip the ON switch and change channels that's all that's required. Does the TV turn on when I want it to, and change channels when I want? That's all I need.

That's certainly true, but that's not a good example. The good example would be if you didn't know anything about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air but that you "discovered" a fundamental problem that could be fixed by sprinking the tv set or radio with pixie dust.

And what we discovered is the vast majority of mpg-cap users don't care how it works, they're just happy to reap the increased mileage, reduced fuel & maintenance costs, and extended engine life.

Wow... all that from a pill. Do you have any actual studies which prove these statements?

That is why the product is not considered a "fuel-additive" by legal definition.

Interesting. Yet, in your earlier post you said "the caplets, once mixed with the fuel, speeds up the in cylinder shape and burn-rate of the fuel, resulting in a faster fuel burn" which makes it sound a lot like a fuel additive and a fuel catalyst. Now, when challenged, you change things around.

The fuel simply acts as a carrier to bring the ingredients to the engine, wherein, it lays down a nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating.

How does this "nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating" form? Where is it laid down? How does this work on stratified charge engines?

The product works on the engine itself, and makes it a more efficient power plant for want of a better analogy.

HOW? Be specific.

It's not a fuel catalyst, ...it's an engine catalyst.

Wait, you just told us that this pill interacts with the fuel. Now you're saying it's not a fuel catalyst but an engine catalyst. Which is it? Do you even know what the word "catalyst" means?

We've found that less is more with this product. We often started with a base of 1 gram per every 60 US gallons, then tweaking amounts slightly up or down to find each particular vehicle's sweet spot.

What percentage of the 1 gram is the active ingredient? How do you go about finding a "particular vehicle's sweet spot" and how do you measure with enough accuracy?

We've found that using more is simply a waste of both money & product, and in fact produces the opposite effect of reducing mileage.

Interesting. Do you know why?

"You'll know if Jerry Lang spouts bullshit?  Oh puleaze!    

Yes. Not only do I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector, but unlike you, I am a scientist. One of the benefits of having a strong academic background is learning how to think clearly and how to study. So even when dealing with things that are outside of my direct field of expertise, I can rationally examine evidence and decide if it makes sense. If I encounter a difficulty or something I do not understand, I read up on it. If I still encounter difficulty, I just ask for help. One of the nice things about working at a University is that I can sit down and have lunch with professors of just about every discipline.

This is a man who is on retainer by every major oil refinery in the world... recruited by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, the #1 combustion expert in the world, ...and you think that armed with some theoretical computation derived from a class taken in one semester at college is enough to challenge him and his real world hands-on experience all over the world?

I think that people who make claims should be prepared to defend them and not hide behind the veneer of expertise. If Mr. Lang is, indeed, the expert you claim he is, then he knows that science doesn't work by name throwing. It works by answering questions and he should have no problem answering the sort of questions I'm asking. In fact, if he has researched this "pill" sufficiently to endorse it, he probably has asked those questions already and answered them to his satisfaction, so why not just publish those answers to quiet critics.

He's probably forgotten more about combustion than you will EVER know.

Maybe that's true. You know what would be great? If this world-renowned expert could, perhaps, write a two paragraph explanation of how this "pill" works using actual science (chemical equations showing how the claimed catalysis happens, an explanation of how this "nano-thin" coating forms or an explanation of the testing methodology employed when testing)
instead of your typical verbal diarrhea?

Stop trying to look like a know-it-all. You're only coming off as an insecure jerk, about 7.5 yrs late to this party. All this has already been previously well explained ad infinitum

No, it hasn't been pretty well explained, and you certainly aren't explaining it well now.

I'm not about to waste a second of Jerry's time to get him to discuss a thing with you. One of Jerry's favourite sayings is "Never argue with idiots. They'll just bring you down to their level, then beat you with their experience." And after hearing it for years from Jerry's lips, ...I'm gonna take his advice.

How typical... "I can't answer your questions and challenge your claims, but my expert could. But he's... uhm... not available. He's... uhm... busy doing stuff. You stupid kakahead!"

And what we discovered is the vast majority of mpg-cap users don't care how it works, they're just happy to reap the increased mileage, reduced fuel & maintenance costs, and extended engine life.

Wow... all that from a pill. Do you have any actual studies which prove these statements?

That is why the product is not considered a "fuel-additive" by legal definition.

In your previous post you told us how this pill help

The fuel simply acts as a carrier to bring the ingredients to the engine, wherein, it lays down a nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating.

How does this "nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating" form? Where is it laid down? How does this work on stratified charge engines?

The product works on the engine itself, and makes it a more efficient power plant for want of a better analogy.

HOW? Be specific.

It's not a fuel catalyst, ...it's an engine catalyst.

Wait, you just told us that this pill interacts with the fuel. Now you're saying it's not a fuel catalyst but an engine catalyst. Which is it? Do you even know what the word "catalyst" means?

We've found that less is more with this product. We often started with a base of 1 gram per every 60 US gallons, then tweaking amounts slightly up or down to find each particular vehicle's sweet spot.

What percentage of the 1 gram is the active ingredient? How do you go about finding a "particular vehicle's sweet spot" and how do you measure with enough accuracy?

We've found that using more is simply a waste of both money & product, and in fact produces the opposite effect of reducing mileage.

Interesting. Do you know why?

"You'll know if Jerry Lang spouts bullshit?  Oh puleaze!    

Yes. Not only do I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector, but unlike you, I am a scientist. One of the benefits of having a strong academic background is learning how to think clearly and how to study. So even when dealing with things that are outside of my direct field of expertise, I can rationally examine evidence and decide if it makes sense. If I encounter a difficulty or something I do not understand, I read up on it. If I still encounter difficulty, I just ask for help. One of the nice things about working at a University is that I can sit down and have lunch with professors of just about every discipline.

This is a man who is on retainer by every major oil refinery in the world... recruited by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, the #1 combustion expert in the world, ...and you think that armed with some theoretical computation derived from a class taken in one semester at college is enough to challenge him and his real world hands-on experience all over the world?

I think that people who make claims should be prepared to defend them and not hide behind the veneer of expertise. If Mr. Lang is, indeed, the expert you claim he is, then he knows that science doesn't work by name throwing. It works by answering questions and he should have no problem answering the sort of questions I'm asking. In fact, if he has researched this "pill" sufficiently to endorse it, he probably has asked those questions already and answered them to his satisfaction, so why not just publish those answers to quiet critics.

He's probably forgotten more about combustion than you will EVER know.

Maybe that's true. You know what would be great? If this world-renowned expert could, perhaps, write a two paragraph explanation of how this "pill" works using actual science (chemical equations showing how the claimed catalysis happens, an explanation of how this "nano-thin" coating forms or an explanation of the testing methodology employed when testing)
instead of your typical verbal diarrhea?

Stop trying to look like a know-it-all. You're only coming off as an insecure jerk, about 7.5 yrs late to this party. All this has already been previously well explained ad infinitum

I'm not about to waste a second of Jerry's time to get him to discuss a thing with you. One of Jerry's favourite sayings is "Never argue with idiots. They'll just bring you down to their level, then beat you with their experience." And after hearing it for years from Jerry's lips, ...I'm gonna take his advice.

How typical... "I can't answer your questions and challenge your claims, but my expert could. But he's... uhm... not available. He's... uhm... busy doing stuff. You stupid kakahead!"

[24KT]

Right - but that's race cars, and then only some kinds or race cars, which can run upwards of 80% nitromethane mixtures and other weird and exotic mixes of fuel.


Please point us to one properly tuned vehicle manufactured in the last twenty years that has flames coming out of the exhaust or which, demonstrably has unburned fuel igniting in the exhaust manifolds.


Oh, I don't know... maybe because they contain the hot gas that is the by-product of combustion?


There are many sensors which measure many things. But the sensors used in the exhaust system measure the O₂ content and adjust the air-fuel mixture accordingly.

Citation needed.

Cars out there routinely produce 100hp per liter of displacement. Cars out thereroutinely get upwards of 40mpg. They have stratified charge engines; some are naturally aspirated and some are not. They have computers which read the sensors and, based on a model of the engine and all the data, adjust the running parameters hundreds or maybe thousands of times a seconds to squeeze as much performance and efficiency.

And yet, you discovered that all these cars have fundamental issues with these systems, issues which nobody knew about (or which everybody who did know, hid). What a fucking joke.

And one more thing, who's "we"? Are you now an automotive engineer too in addition to a financial consultant? The fact is you didn't discover shit and the stuff you spout is nonsensical. What incentive, if any, do manufacturers of automobiles have to produce engines that suboptimally burn fuel, reducing engine efficiency and performance in a market that is highly competitive?
 

No, you don't. But if you're going to try to talk organo-metallic chemistry and tell us about Wilkinson's Catalyst, you probably should.


Do they? Can you give us an example of the dosing instructions? I'm curious to see how I would calculate the amount of pills I need to drop in my gas tank.


That's certainly true, but that's not a good example. The good example would be if you didn't know anything about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air but that you "discovered" a fun
Right - but that's race cars, and then only some kinds or race cars, which can run upwards of 80% nitromethane mixtures and other weird and exotic mixes of fuel.


Please point us to one properly tuned vehicle manufactured in the last twenty years that has flames coming out of the exhaust or which, demonstrably has unburned fuel igniting in the exhaust manifolds.


Oh, I don't know... maybe because they contain the hot gas that is the by-product of combustion?


There are many sensors which measure many things. But the sensors used in the exhaust system measure the O₂ content and adjust the air-fuel mixture accordingly.

Citation needed.

Cars out there routinely produce 100hp per liter of displacement. Cars out thereroutinely get upwards of 40mpg. They have stratified charge engines; some are naturally aspirated and some are not. They have computers which read the sensors and, based on a model of the engine and all the data, adjust the running parameters hundreds or maybe thousands of times a seconds to squeeze as much performance and efficiency.

And yet, you discovered that all these cars have fundamental issues with these systems, issues which nobody knew about (or which everybody who did know, hid). What a fucking joke.

And one more thing, who's "we"? Are you now an automotive engineer too in addition to a financial consultant? The fact is you didn't discover shit and the stuff you spout is nonsensical. What incentive, if any, do manufacturers of automobiles have to produce engines that suboptimally burn fuel, reducing engine efficiency and performance in a market that is highly competitive?
 

No, you don't. But if you're going to try to talk organo-metallic chemistry and tell us about Wilkinson's Catalyst, you probably should.


Do they?


That's certainly true, but that's not a good example. The good example would be if you didn't know anything about how a TV set or radio picks up signals sent through the air but that you "discovered" a fundamental problem that could be fixed by sprinking the tv set or radio with pixie dust.


Wow... all that from a pill. Do you have any actual studies which prove these statements?


Interesting. Yet, in your earlier post you said "the caplets, once mixed with the fuel, speeds up the in cylinder shape and burn-rate of the fuel, resulting in a faster fuel burn" which makes it sound a lot like a fuel additive and a fuel catalyst. Now, when challenged, you change things around.


How does this "nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating" form? Where is it laid down? How does this work on stratified charge engines?


HOW? Be specific.


Wait, you just told us that this pill interacts with the fuel. Now you're saying it's not a fuel catalyst but an engine catalyst. Which is it? Do you even know what the word "catalyst" means?


What percentage of the 1 gram is the active ingredient? How do you go about finding a "particular vehicle's sweet spot" and how do you measure with enough accuracy?


Interesting. Do you know why?


Yes. Not only do I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector, but unlike you, I am a scientist. One of the benefits of having a strong academic background is learning how to think clearly and how to study. So even when dealing with things that are outside of my direct field of expertise, I can rationally examine evidence and decide if it makes sense. If I encounter a difficulty or something I do not understand, I read up on it. If I still encounter difficulty, I just ask for help. One of the nice things about working at a University is that I can sit down and have lunch with professors of just about every discipline.


I think that people who make claims should be prepared to defend them and not hide behind the veneer of expertise. If Mr. Lang is, indeed, the expert you claim he is, then he knows that science doesn't work by name throwing. It works by answering questions and he should have no problem answering the sort of questions I'm asking. In fact, if he has researched this "pill" sufficiently to endorse it, he probably has asked those questions already and answered them to his satisfaction, so why not just publish those answers to quiet critics.


Maybe that's true. You know what would be great? If this world-renowned expert could, perhaps, write a two paragraph explanation of how this "pill" works using actual science (chemical equations showing how the claimed catalysis happens, an explanation of how this "nano-thin" coating forms or an explanation of the testing methodology employed when testing)
instead of your typical verbal diarrhea?

No, it hasn't been pretty well explained, and you certainly aren't explaining it well now.


How typical... "I can't answer your questions and challenge your claims, but my expert could. But he's... uhm... not available. He's... uhm... busy doing stuff. You stupid kakahead!"


Wow... all that from a pill. Do you have any actual studies which prove these statements?


In your previous post you told us how this pill help
How does this "nano thin sacrificial catalytic coating" form? Where is it laid down? How does this work on stratified charge engines?


HOW? Be specific.


Wait, you just told us that this pill interacts with the fuel. Now you're saying it's not a fuel catalyst but an engine catalyst. Which is it? Do you even know what the word "catalyst" means?


What percentage of the 1 gram is the active ingredient? How do you go about finding a "particular vehicle's sweet spot" and how do you measure with enough accuracy?


Interesting. Do you know why?


Yes. Not only do I have a very finely tuned bullshit detector, but unlike you, I am a scientist. One of the benefits of having a strong academic background is learning how to think clearly and how to study. So even when dealing with things that are outside of my direct field of expertise, I can rationally examine evidence and decide if it makes sense. If I encounter a difficulty or something I do not understand, I read up on it. If I still encounter difficulty, I just ask for help. One of the nice things about working at a University is that I can sit down and have lunch with professors of just about every discipline.


I think that people who make claims should be prepared to defend them and not hide behind the veneer of expertise. If Mr. Lang is, indeed, the expert you claim he is, then he knows that science doesn't work by name throwing. It works by answering questions and he should have no problem answering the sort of questions I'm asking. In fact, if he has researched this "pill" sufficiently to endorse it, he probably has asked those questions already and answered them to his satisfaction, so why not just publish those answers to quiet critics.


Maybe that's true. You know what would be great? If this world-renowned expert could, perhaps, write a two paragraph explanation of how this "pill" works using actual science (chemical equations showing how the claimed catalysis happens, an explanation of how this "nano-thin" coating forms or an explanation of the testing methodology employed when testing)
instead of your typical verbal diarrhea?


How typical... "I can't answer your questions and challenge your claims, but my expert could. But he's... uhm... not available. He's... uhm... busy doing stuff. You stupid kakahead!"

[avxo]

Again, typical behavior. It must be frustrating for you; you see that not only do I not accept, at face value, the copy-pasted bullshit you offer but that I can actively debunk it. It must be very frustrating.

By the way, who is this guy? Is he a world-renowned combustion expert too?