New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 230
  1. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    18
    #21
    Originally posted by the_wildthing
    I ain't no engineer nor architect nor inventor... I'm just a simple minded tsikoteer. But if that product's so good, why isn't every car in the US equipped with that thingamajig if it's been around for decades? Since they're so concerned with pollution over there...
    the 'ego' device was introduced in the market just late last year. it is just a by-product of another invention, which topped the enercon test wayback in the early 80's. 'ego' is better than the previous invention.

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    29,354
    #22
    Originally posted by eco

    i am sorry, i just find you very conceited of your profession as an engineer. mr. alegre is an architect by profession and he may not be as 'expert' as you are in mechanical engineering.
    .
    .
    .
    This invention was developed by an architect who has a sterling record in pollution control and fuel economy. Take note and this is on record: he topped the enercon test during the Marcos era, besting other technologies from other countries abroad. He has travelled around the world sponsored by the UNDP for exposition. So what does this tell?

    [/B]
    This is bothering me.

    What does an architech have to do with pollution control and fuel economy? Isn't an architech supposed to design & build houses, buildings and other NON-MOVING structures? Or am I missing a point here?

  3. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    18
    #23
    Originally posted by ghosthunter
    This is bothering me.

    What does an architech have to do with pollution control and fuel economy? Isn't an architech supposed to design & build houses, buildings and other NON-MOVING structures? Or am I missing a point here?
    why does it bother you mr. ghosthunter? it should amaze you, instead. ordinary people (architecht or not) who are not even educated can produce wonders.

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    10,820
    #24
    Originally posted by eco
    why does it bother you mr. ghosthunter? it should amaze you, instead. ordinary people (architecht or not) who are not even educated can produce wonders.
    i agree on you on one thing, ordinary people do come up with great things.

    BUT still you have not answered my questions and so we continue to wonder. not on the personality of the inventor, ok, but on the invention itself. so please answer my questions.

    how does it work? specifically we want to find out the ff:

    1. what causes the HC and CO to further oxidize after passing through the device? is there a catalysts? or has the inventor invented a new chemical process whereby these chemicals can still associate with oxygen even at lowered temperatures and without any source of ignition?

    2. what is your basis of saying that the HC and CO indeed will be lowered? NOT BY PERCENTAGE AS MEASURED BY AN EMISSION TESTER BUT BY ACTUAL MOLAL COUNT.

    3. how does a device that is apparently suppose to cause a restriction and an increase in mass flow lower the exhaust pressure and thus increase horsepower?

    technical questions need technical answers, sir.

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #25
    Hi, just clicked on from fordclubph.com, referred by another member...

    Mr. Yebo... thank you, I have not heard such a well-argued position against the proliferation of these fuel-saving / pollution killing / energy enhancing devices from a Filipino until now...

    Just noticed something though, one of the tests on the homepage claims to be of a Nissan Frontier plate #WMS 818 tested in January of 2003. I'm no expert, but a WMS plate is 2000-2001, and I'm wondering how a TWO YEAR OLD DIESEL CAN FAIL A STANDARDS EMISSION TEST. This is very strange indeed.

    I notice the only other tests on the site are of a Hino Shuttle bus (of dubious lineage) and a Jeepney. Neither of these vehicles is the paragon of clean air, and almost anything done to them will improve emissions.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    136
    #26
    hay ,speaking of ,engineers and architech,, may be you can help me ? need to fix my kitchen ,smoke enters my living room everytime my maid fries dried tuyu ,, gues i need a smoke emition device in my kitchen ..plzz need help .. URGENT..

  7. Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    653
    #27
    hmmm..two different opinions like water & oil put together in one test tube vessel..me sariling paninindigan..

    si sir g-shock has similar exhaust problems though home-based in nature..hehehe

    IMHO, may grounds si sir eco to insist the thing really works what with the media, DOST, etc. backing him up..sir yebo & other posters are standing firm the gadget do not work as testing parameters fell short of technical compliances, hence would make the car perform worse making the thing destined to oblivion..

    for me, i dont tinker too much with my cars one because i dont have time; two i bought it with warranty on it; three i'm just helping out making life less hellish for my family; and last but not the least i'm really a cautious person against things not proven to work in the long term..i'm adding this invention to my few list..

    your time to ponder..heheheheeeee

  8. Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,621
    #28
    Here's a good site which discusses all these so-called devices:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cains1/Fuel_saving.htm

    Choice quote:

    A typical claim is that the combustion with the device fitted is somehow "better" or "more complete". There is never however any detail as to what is meant by this. And it is a firmly established engineering fact that, on any reasonably modern engine under normal operating conditions, the burn is already at least 98% complete. The unburnt fuel in the exhaust (even before the cat) represents 1 or 2% at most of the input fuel. If you factor in the energy in the CO emissions, the figure still only rises to 3% maximum. So even if the fuel "saving" device could totally eliminate unburnt fuel and CO in the exhaust, and give an absolutely 100% complete burn, you would only save 3% of fuel. Claims that 10%, 20% or even more of the fuel is not burnt and escapes into the exhaust are entirely false - the unburnt fuel figure is higher when the engine is stone-cold, and at high load and speed conditions, but since the engine only spends a small fraction of its time under these conditions their contribution to overall fuel consumption is small.


    The other reason why these devices can't work is simple business. Fuel consumption is a very hot topic in the European car industry at the moment, because it is directly related to carbon dioxide, which is a "greenhouse gas". Consumers and legislators are demanding ever-better fuel consumption from new cars. The industry is investing literally billions of pounds on more efficient engines, for example diesels (and we wouldn't do that if we were in the pay of oil companies, would we?) But these more efficient engines are also much more expensive to make - for example a diesel will produce about 15 - 20% less carbon dioxide, but adds about £500 - £1000 to the cost of a car. These "fuel saving devices" claim nearly as much benefit for a tenth of the cost - the car industry would not only sell its grandmother for this kind of saving, but sacrifice its first-born son too!

    Given that, you have to ask why any such device isn't fitted to new cars as standard. The answer is simple - they don't work. If they did, they would be on new cars. No question. Industry has seen hundreds of these things go by, and can't afford to waste thousands of pounds on testing each and every one of them. But if you'd invented a miracle gismo like this and knew it worked, wouldn't you pay your own money on tests to prove it, given that you could then sell millions?

    Some people argue that car makers are so keen to reduce costs that even the few pounds that one of these devices costs would be too expensive. And of course on some entry-level cars, and in cheap-gasoline America, there is some truth in that. But in Europe (especially in the UK with CO2-based company car tax) many consumers have proved willing to spend several hundred pounds more on a car if it is more economical. You need only look at the booming sales of diesels, which cost anything up to £1000 more than the petrol equivalent, for proof of this. There is a clear profit incentive for car makers to equip at least part of their range with more economical engines and so the potential market for a genuine fuel saving device runs into tens of millions of pounds a year. Sufficient incentive for any manufacturer of such a device to spend a few thousand on tests, you would think.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    10,603
    #29
    Bingo yung post ni Orly_Anidco ;) ....


    ....Given that, you have to ask why any such device isn't fitted to new cars as standard. The answer is simple - they don't work. If they did, they would be on new cars. No question. Industry has seen hundreds of these things go by, and can't afford to waste thousands of pounds on testing each and every one of them. But if you'd invented a miracle gismo like this and knew it worked, wouldn't you pay your own money on tests to prove it, given that you could then sell millions?....

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,470
    #30
    ehem, ehem, ehem.................. bakit ba puro devices iniimbento. baka naman pwedeng gawin ng DOST, etc., is to device a way of producing cleaner fuels or alternative fuels kesa aprubahan ang mga devices na yan..... opinion ko lang :-)

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
anti-smoke emission and fuel-saving device