Re: Projects

Posted by Dave Schmick On 2010/12/10 10:34:50

This device is even more preposterous than fuel additives which claim improved performance. I support R&D at an Army ground vehicle research facility, and I have lost count of the number of companies that have approached us offering their performance-enhancing products and claiming significant improvements in horsepower and fuel efficiency simply by pouring 8 oz of their snake oil into a vehicle's fuel tank.

The U.S. Army recognizes the potential of additives to impart desired qualities to improve products we use. This is based on the fact that additives are routinely used in lubricants and fuels as cetane improvers, anti-oxidants,
and anti-wear agents. However, the blending of additives in products is a careful balancing act to ensure the product performs as desired and doesn't adversely affect the
benefits of other properties, or reduce the system reliability in other areas. Tossing an additive into an already formulated product can throw off this balance and needs to be verified before implementing. Unfortunately,
there is no single quick and easy test to verify whether the additive has the claimed benefits or if there are any adverse effects elsewhere. When we have asked these companies selling these additives for their industry-accepted data/reports supporting their claims, they NEVER seem to be able to cough them up. Rather, they rely on testimonials or very questionable science. Then they have the audacity to suggest that the Army pay for testing them!

I should note that the EPA requires any additive intended to be used as a fuel additive to be registered with them. This registration is needed to verify the additive product only contains chemicals already present in the fuel. EPA registration is not a validation of the improvements or benefits claimed on the product.

Can you tell I have something against additives?

Dave