Fuelstar and science.

Fuelstar makes claims which look to be scientific in nature.

It's all very well for me to state that it doesn't work, but I'm not even a chemist, let alone scientist with the ability to evaluate it. Accordingly, I have relied upon the advice and experience of many scientists and chemists to accept that the Fuelstar device is no more than a cheap trick.

Here are some copies of comments from actual scientists: (n.b. evidence held)

PhD Chemistry, San Jose, California, USA.

A catalyst promotes a chemical reaction without being consumed itself. For example, catalytic converters in the exhaust system use platinum to promote reactions to clean up the exhaust. You never have to replace the platinum in your catalytic converters. If the tin (or tin oxide) is being released into the petrol it is not acting as a catalyst. So what is the catalyst? And if tin (or tin oxide) is released into the petrol, how often does the tin in the device have to be replaced? Or does it somehow magically make its way from the exhaust back into the device?

In an electrolytic reaction, an electric current provides electrons that complete a reaction with a positive ion. Which would mean the device would have to be connected to the electrical system.

Neither catalysis nor electrolysis is dependant on vibrational frequency.

So, the effect can't be tested by measuring power output, the purported compounds can't be detected in the exhaust, the device consumes neither power nor chemicals, but we should take their word for it that it works. And the device must physically move (apparently the vibrations of the engine itself are not sufficient). I'm sure they have loads of testimonials too...

Sorry, but if there were a real chemical basis for this they would not need to hide behind pseudoscientific language.

PhD, LRHSC, British Columbia, Canada:

Tetraethyllead worked to prevent knocking because it formed relatively stable free radicals. But metallic tin isn't going to react with hydrocarbons to give alkyltin compounds of any sort- it would need alkyl halides to undergo such a reaction.

PhD, Los Angeles, California, USA

You've got to get elemental tin into alkane solution in significant quantities, and tin's not reactive, and alkanes certainly aren't reactive. I can't see a way to get tin into solution.

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

LAB TEST OF FUELSTAR
Summary of University of Melbourne Report

These tests have concluded that the Fuelstar petrol catalyst had no significant measurable effect on valve seat recession or knock-limited performance of the engine.
The tests were based on Australian Standard AS4430.1-1996. This Standard is specifically designed for evaluating claims made for devices, processes and additives to enable engine systems designed to operate on 97-98 RON leaded petrol to run with comparable antiknock performance and durability on 91-92 RON unleaded petrol.

The tests consisted of two parts: a cyclic durability test to measure valve recession and an incipient knock-limited spark advance test. They were done on a GMH Commodore engine installed on a test bed and fully instrumented to measure all critical parameters.

New Zealand unleaded 91 octane petrol, certified by BP Oil NZ, was used for all the tests. The Fuelstar PS 120 petrol catalyst was mounted in accordance with instructions supplied by Fuelstar New Zealand.
The test procedure consisted of initially stripping, inspecting and measuring the engine to establish the reference measurements, and mounting the engine on the test bed. After a 20-hour conditioning period (equivalent to about 2,000 km of normal driving) the engine was run over a repeated 30 minute cycle consisting of both high speed and load and idle for a number of hours. At set intervals the inlet and exhaust valve clearances were checked and compared with the performance limit set down in the Standard.

At the end of the durability test, the knock-limited spark advance was measured by running the engine at full load and adjusting the ignition timing until knock just started to occur. This procedure was repeated for speeds from 1,000 to 4,000 rev/min. Both the durability and spark advance tests were carried out with and without the Fuelstar device fitted. Normally the durability test would be run for 50 hours, at which point the exhaust valve recession should not have exceeded 0.25mm. In this case the limit was reached after only 8 hours of running both with and without the Fuelstar device fitted.

There was no significant difference in the valve seat recession with and without the Fuelstar device fitted.
In the Standard test procedure the spark advance test should have been conducted at the end of the 50 hours. However, as it was not possible to reach this point without excessive valve recession, the tests were done at the end of 8 hours. While this may not have been acceptable had the test been required to measure the absolute knock-limited spark advance, due to insufficient time to build up deposits in the combustion chambers, for the purposes of comparison it was considered acceptable. The study found no significant difference between the engine’s spark advance requirement at incipient knock with or without the Fuelstar device fitted.

Name withheld at my discretion - original available

Our testing was a student research project instigated by Ian Cornelius and when it provided unsatisfactory
results for him, he threatened legal action to prevent its publication

We have also spoken to a number of local scientists and consulting analysts and all are equally of the opinion that Fuelstar is pseudoscience and that there is no scientific basis for assuming it might work. No known chemical, electrolytic or catalytic  reaction causes the stated effect. These details are available upon request.

Because people buying the gadget aren't scientists, there are some easy questions to ask yourself about the validity of the product:

Who, in the entire world, has the most to gain from a device which increases power and decreases fuel usage?

Motor racing teams.

Talk to the racing car manufacturers - Renault, Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, Mack, Kenworth, Jaguar, McLaren, Ferrari, Ford, Holden and Porsche and ask whether they'd like to get a free increase in power and decrease petrol usage.

Then wonder why not a single racing car manufacturer or racing team uses Fuelstar.

........................ Or ever will.

In fact, why does every single internal combustion engine manufacturer advise against installing Fuelstar?

Maybe they're all in a giant conspiracy with oil companies...

Yeah, right.

BRING IT ON!!!

 

Return to front page

Copyright © 2008 Immortality Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other bits of pseudoscience pretending to save you fuel:

GasWiz

Ecotube