ECOTAZ ECO Fuelsystems Fuel Enhancers - Does it work?

That's why a day or three or even a week or two mean nothing. You calculate mpg's every fill up and over a period of time months, or a year get an accurate average even with the inconsistencies of level ground at the pump versus a slight downward slant.

 

exactly my point hammer, his improvements so far had nothing to do with the combustion of the fuel. if this device does what it says dice1 especially should show an improvement.

 

The reason the % gain will be less on a super efficient truck are actually quite simple.
Now it must be remembered that we are only interested in the distance the truck moves per gallon of diesel consumed.
This is what we are trying to improve , nothing else.
There are various factors that affect this.
To improve this we can lower the amount of energy required to move the truck.
Examples of way of doing this are low friction everything's , aerodynamic enchantments etc.
Another way is to get more energy from the same amount of Diesel.
This is usually achieved by getting a more complete burn of the diesel.
This is usually achieved by improvements to the engine that make it more efficient.
Things like free flowing the breathing and conditioning of the diesel (think Fass).

The Ecotaz system I believe works on conditioning the diesel for a better burn.
Lets assume the Ecotaz system gives a better burn thus releasing 3% more of the chemical energy in the diesel in to heat.(Just as an example).

If we have a rather inefficient truck being driven in a inefficient manner.
Lug tires all round , poor aerodynamics, running 75mph or whatever you can think of.
You end up with a situation where the chemical energy in your truck is having to overcome all these factors before any of it can be utilized to move the truck.
For arguments sake we amuse the burn rate of the diesel is 75% efficient.
30% of the chemical energy is taken up by aerodynamic losses.
25% of the chemical is taken up by frictional losses.
This only leaves us with 20% of the chemical energy contained in the diesel being used to move the truck.

Now on the already super efficient truck we have the following numbers.
It has a more efficient engine with ported heads , free flow breathing and a Fass system taking the air out of the diesel.
We get a 80% efficiency in the burn rate.
Because the truck is a aero truck running at 57 mph only 20% of the chemical energy in the diesel is used to overcome these losses.
Because this truck runs single tires at a slower speed and has everything that turns coated in woderlube it only uses 20% of the energy contained in the diesel to overcome these losses.
This leaves 40% of the chemical energy in the diesel avalible to move the truck.

So on the one extreme we have the inefficient truck only using 20% of the energy in the diesel to get mpg and the super efficient truck using 40% of the energy to get mpg.
Thus a 9mpg truck and a 4,5mpg truck.

Back to the ecotaz system.
Even if we don't assume the super efficient trucks diesel is already better conditioned .
We apply the same % improvement to both trucks of a 3% better burn.
We are not changing any of the other factors affecting mpg only this one thing.
The inefficient truck now instead of having 20% of the chemical energy in the diesel for mpg it has 23%.
This is a 15% increase in mpg.
The super efficient truck goes from 40% of the chemical energy in the diesel for mpg to 43%.
This is a 7,5% increase in mpg.

I have used totally fictitious numbers here.
The principal is however sound.
This is the reason Dice will not show the same % improvements of some others even if the system works.

 

"chemical energy"

 

????

 

Here is the fix for our nations energy issues.


It's a giant EcoTaz on it's way to the refinery. They're going to install it in the pipeline and increase the "chemical energy" of the fuel BEFORE it reaches the fuel racks!!!
Well it will ONLY work if it's installed in the right location in the pipeline. If no one sees any results it's because they didn't install it correctly, not because it's just a piece of pipe!

Wake up people!

I'm marketing my own fuel saving filters. They're old fuel filters I've filled with floor sweepings and sand. If you don't see positive results after 6 months I'll send you your money back.

 

try again KingQ.....

coefficient of friction from wind resistance is exponential, not linear.

 

I'm back there somewhere too. Same call. Dyno, controlled conditions, identical fuel in the tank, yada yada.

Exactly.... the improvement ratio won't be exactly the same for the more efficient truck, but the % of improvement should be consistent.

That's pretty #### funny.

Maybe we should put them on the drilling rigs too, and chemically charge the crude before it gets to the refinery.

 

Okay, to see where you got this completely wrong, kingQ, we need to use the right units, and keep as many apples separate from the oranges as we can...

Let's use two trucks, running the same speed, same load, same road. Just to keep math simple we'll say 55 mph. We have Dice getting 9 mpg, which equates to 6.1 gph. And Supertrucker Steve getting 6 mpg or 9.2 gph. Using 7.1 Lbs/ gal gives us 43.4 lbs/hr and 65.1 lbs/hr, respectively.

Now we are going to assume all of the difference in fuel usage is solely attributed to drag reductions. Which will let us calculate the horsepower requirement of each truck. A fairly typical BSFC is .3 lbs/hp*hr, and that lets us calculate that Dice requires 144.6 HP vs. 216.9 hp for Steve.

So now we drop our BSFC number 3% to .291 lbs/hp*hr. This gives us 42.1 lbs/hr for Dice and 63.1 for Steve; equivalent to 5.9 gal/hr and 8.9 gal/hr. (I've used the true numbers in my calculations, just rounded for ease of typing here.) This converts back to 9.27 mpg for Dice and 6.18mpg for Steve, which are respectively 103% of the previous mpg number for both. (And do notice that the higher mpg truck showed a greater numerical gain.)

You see, the percentage of energy in diesel used to create power is fairly constant, it doesn't vary by 50% as you try to claim. You have to look at lbs/hp*hr (ok, that's the third time I've mentioned that today, are y'all getting the point, yet?) and multiply that by the power needs of the truck. A slippery truck getting 9 mpg and a brick getting 6 mpg both use about 35% of the fuel energy for actual work; the slippery truck just uses about 2/3 as much fuel.

 

Yes this is Hilarious!!!! The funnier part is that Drilling companies are already using ECO-Systems on their drilling rigs to reduce their fuel consumption. While you guys are trying to argue your ego's, oil companies are instaliing ECO's on Genrators, Drilling Rigs, Crude Haulers, Light Packs, and etc. They care less about your sciences. They just know the product works in increasing their mpg's and their gph. As well as reducing their fuel costs.
The bottom line still is that you pay for your own fuel.
Hammer I have never attacked you and have no reason too.
I don't know who you are and personally I think your entitled to your own opinion. I believe your just upset cause you can't figure out HOW we do what we are doing.
The truth Here on this thread is that The Professionals that tried and tested the product and are seriously putting money in their Bank Accounts are not going to return the units.
Those of you that can't figure it out will continue to argue and keep putting money into the oil pumps to buy more gallons of diesel. That profit is helping the oilfield business buy more ECO's to reduce their cost to increase their profits so that they can produce more diesel cheaper.
Soon we will post tons of oil field pics that are using and refering the ECO's.
You see the cycle here Hammer?
Oil companies need Nay-Sayers like yourself. It's big profits for them.