ECOTAZ ECO Fuelsystems Fuel Enhancers - Does it work?

Discussion in 'Ask An Owner Operator' started by bigfoot13, Sep 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Light Load Member

    286
    113
    Nov 15, 2010
    0
    Your statements here show that you have never been involved in this type of testing.
    The Lab prints all the data and the grant writer who is approved by both parties then does the analysis nand any rebuttle if nacessary.
    read the report.
     
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. windsmith

    windsmith Road Train Member

    7,296
    6,028
    Sep 2, 2011
    NEPA
    0
    YOU are the one that said the device CANNOT yield negative fuel economy (which the tests contradict), and YOU are the developer and the manufacturer of the device. YOU do the explaining. We're waiting.
     
  4. windsmith

    windsmith Road Train Member

    7,296
    6,028
    Sep 2, 2011
    NEPA
    0
    What is a 'rebuttle'? I can't find that word in the dictionary...
     
  5. ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Light Load Member

    286
    113
    Nov 15, 2010
    0
    As "lost trucker" said, all the positive testers are tired of being ridiculed and refuse to post any more. The hatred the few Negative guys have here is very clear to see. I have to admit that I truly believe most of the Negative Posters here are tied in with some of our competition. Either chemical additives or other fuel devices. The saving grace for you negative posters is you can hide behind fake names and false id's of being truckers. You can bash and ridicule over and over and no one knows who you are. Unlike on my end Everyone here knows who I am and how I make my living. If I were to make harmful statements like Dice, Windsmith, Faulk99, and a couple of other negative posters about your trucking business (without any personal knowledge of you or your business) the moderators here would be all over me and shut me down. Dice would love nothing better than to have this thread shut down so he can toot his own horn on the other forums. Our competition would love to see this thread shut down as well.
    As far as coming on here and bashing and ridiculing me I have no problem. I have had some of the Best, such as Fleet Supervisors Laugh at first and then turn and purchase due to the fact that we saved them fuel. But to ridicule the O/O's that volunteered to test is unacceptable. They are posting their real world results and I applaud them for stepping up and doing so. Where were all you Naysayers when we were offering units?
    None of you showed up until all the positive results started coming in. Anyone can get on here with fake names and Bash with no experience of the product.
    No unbiased Professional Trucker is going to spend this many Hours deliberately trying to slam a product.
    Competitors? Yea, they get ugly and keep on ranting.
    Oh and if this is the only way you can get recognition, I apologize to you.
    Keep on ranting.
    Ben
     
    losttrucker and tphammer Thank this.
  6. High Desert Dweller

    High Desert Dweller Medium Load Member

    431
    388
    Jan 29, 2009
    0
    You forgot to add Big Oil.
     
    Dice1 Thanks this.
  7. Hammer166

    Hammer166 Crusty Information Officer

    6,920
    23,775
    Aug 18, 2007
    ~8600+' and loving it!
    0
    Alright... let's do a little recap here.

    First off, Ben, you insist on the personal attacks (even while denying them in the next post,) and grouping those of us who doubt your product into "Dice's Posse." I've been in this thread long before Dice showed up, as have several other doubters, and I have in no way coordinated with Dice. There may have been a half dozen PM's total, and I don't think it was that many. You seem to have a blind spot, too; because I have disagreed with Dice multiple times. So knock off the slams accusing us of doing someone else's bidding, it's really quite insulting (but you knew that.)


    Now for the meat:

    The patent for Ben's device claims the tube:

    A couple things here:
    1. Diesel cracked into smaller chains is called gasoline. You really want to run that through your injectors?
    2. Even if this device accomplished cracking, it would be extremely short-lived, as there is a need for 2 addtional hydrogen molecules to "cap" the ends of the new chains. Without that hydrogen "cap", the chains would rapidly reconnect.
    3. Natural gas consists mainly of methane, which has only 1 carbon atom (no chain) and therefore cannot be 'cracked.' How does the device possibly benefit a natural gas engine.
    4. Shorter chains result in a less dense liquid, and would result in a fuel with less BTU's per gallon. This is a major problem in an engine that injects fuel based on volume.

    Now when the 'cracking' balloon wasn't flying, the emphasis switched to "we increase the volatility of the fuel." Hokay! There are two ways to increase the volatility of fuel:
    1. Increase the temperature
    2. Reduce the size of the carbon chains

    As noted above, #2 ain't happening, and #1 won't help because it reduces the density of the fuel (less energy per injection stroke.)

    Now I'm not saying y'all that showed a result are imagining things! You most likely did see an improvement. It just wasn't because of the device. You see, there is no way for the device to be doing what it claims it's doing to the fuel. And if that is true, the only plausible explanation is that a placebo effect is going on.

    Fuel economy testing is a bear. Achieving repeatable numbers borders on impossible because of all the variables. The automakers spent millions to build their own roads out in the desert to try and remove as many variables as possible. And even then they run a ridiculous number of cycles so they can get a good average. Ben likes to point out how it was "Professional O/O's who did the testing, and they know what they're doing." Not really, not when it comes to fuel economy testing. And along comes Dice, who comes the closest of any to having a repeatable run; and he gets slammed for not showing a positive result. Just like the others who didn't show a positive result in the early testing. "Must be something wrong with your truck," and yet none of the positives were ever questioned about any aspect of their driving; it was always assumed to be the device. Which is good salesmenship, but not exactly high on the ethical chart.

    Let's look at the dyno chart for the tractor that's up on Ben's website.
    http://www.etieco.com/content-files/DynoTest-Tractor.pdf
    I used 7.1 lbs/gal as estimated fuel density and calculate the BSFC numbers based on the link. That number went from .4312 lbs/hp*hr to .3675 lbs/hp*hr. That is a 15% improvement in BSFC with no mechanical changes and no difference in fuel (in the tank) ??? A Cummins engineer sell both nuts and rights to conjugal visits with his wife and hot coed daughters to achieve such a gain without mechanical changes. It's just not a realistic gain. And if it were true, Ben would not be in here hustling O/O's trying to make a few bucks. The implications are literally world-changing, were it so simple to save so much fuel with such a simple device. Stop and ponder what a instant 15% reduction in fuel demand means, economically and politically. The Ecotaz would not be the snake-oil-of-the-month if could indeed achieve what it claims.

    The following paragraph is a little deep guys, there's just no way to avoid it that I could think of...

    It would really be quite simple to test the claims made by the makers of the this device. And I imagine that there are chemisty professors all across the country who would love to use the analysis as a real world lab example. All it would take is to run some fuel through this device, analyze the resulting fuel in a gas chromatograph and through a distillation test, and any changes in the fuel would not only be obvious but quantifiable. This paper states that GC tests showed no differences between the before and after fuel, which they assert as an indicator of no change in the types of molecules in the fuel. (Oh, I see! The Ecotaz changes the fuel, but it doesn't!) But if this tube is indeed 'cracking' molecules, it'd be cracking shorter chains into lighter molecules that would be obvious in the GC test. The author of this paper (and if you take that paper to a scientist as proof the device works, be prepared for laughter,) based his conclusions on results obtained by outside sources and that data is not presented. The outside data indicated on reduction in distillation temperature (a fuel with lighter molecules) and pour point. The gist of the letter is that the author did surface tension and GC/MS tests and was asked how those results could correlate to the outside test results. He basically closes with "further work needed," and of course, we are just supposed to be too dumb to comprehend that his tests and the outside tests don't jive because, as I pointed out, the magic tube isn't going to pick and choose which molecules it 'cracks.' In fact, that the maker claims it works on gasoline as well indicates that it 'cracks' lighter molecules as well as heavier ones. Conclusion?

    There's a heck of a pile of manure lurkin' 'round here!

    And it's bedtime...
     
    wimp, fortycalglock, Dice1 and 3 others Thank this.
  8. rookietrucker

    rookietrucker Trucker Forum STAFF Staff Member

    10,061
    7,052
    Jul 15, 2007
    TEXAS
    0
    TTR Staff has decided, This thread served it's purpose and turned into advertising for the product.
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  • Thread Status:
    Not open for further replies.