Gas saving device

[ghosthunter]

http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/...0&pagenumber=2

Ischaramoochie said

well then, i'll just have to ask about that in the office. yes, the term "turbo" in the KSTC was not meant to be taken in its strict definition.

actually totally out of definition...

definitions for turbo:

This device uses exhaust gas to boost engine power. A small, lightweight turbine inserted into the exhaust manifold spins as exhaust gas goes speeding past. On the other side of the turbine shaft, fresh air is then compressed into the intake manifold. The more air that goes into the engine, the more power it can make. Unlike other forms of boosting intake pressure, the turbo used a virtually "free" source of energy in the form of waste gas. The knock on early "turbos" was a "lag," caused by the delay while the turbo came up to operating speed every time you floored the accelerator. Materials and technology advances have virtually eliminated this deficiency. Used judiciously, a turbo can actually improve fuel economy.

Ischaramoochie said

that fact may be true. however, the test conducted was not about mileage per se, but a comparison of mileage with and without the device installed. this means that city driving with and without the device would still exhibit roughly the same marginal difference in terms of mileage.

based on the sales material its mentioned "brings toxic carbon monoxide levels down to zero". Another parts mentions, "other pollutants like carbon dioxide & hydrocarbon were likewise brought down to the minimum".

But based on the test data vs the EPA standards, its shown that the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide levels are very much above EPA limits. It cannot even qualify as a clean-air vehicle.

You have shown your test data. Are you saying there is something wrong with your own test data? Why do you not accept your own results/data that its exceeds the allowable limits for pollutiing gasses?

Ischaramoochie said

as has been said earlier, the installation of the device will not have an effect on NOx emissions since it does not lean out the a/f mixture above that obtained when stepping fully on the accelerator. given this information, NOx levels should not exceed those derived from normal operation. so much for the NOx issue. btw, what a/f ratio do you consider as "lean?"

what are your basis and support on your statements above? Are you an engineer? Are you the one who developed the device? What is your definition of "normal operation".

You thought simply by posting the test report data you can end this discussion?

btw, in the test report its mentioned that the TESTING CATEGORY was "Non-regulation". So where is your rigid testing? A demo done on some local government head's car?

Ischaramoochie said

and yes, you can obtain the same results by adjusting the air flow valve. however, this would cause above average ratios given full accelerator use. why shell out 6500? because you didn't think of it first. haven't you ever wondered why technicians charge a fortune just for replacing a screw?

well, then don't have them replace the screw. Just ask them how its done and do it yourself. Some people aren't stupid.

Ischaramoochie said

i'm aware of that. that's also why i said that there are many oxides of nitrogen; some are toxic and some are not. see my previous posts. now, if people would be more specific as to which particular NOx we are talking about, then the discussion can go on a bit more smoothly.

Farts are mostly methane gas, not NOx gas. And since we are talking about engine exhaust, I think we can safely assume we are talking NOx emissions from the muffler, not from biological sources.

Kindly keep to the topic and avoid diverting the discussion. You are just making yourself look more stupid.