Fuelstar!
Update: September 2008.
I have recently been involved in an e mail debate with one David Butt, a UK resident of over 40 years' experience as a motor mechanic. Mr Butt, formerly a soldier with the Royal Army, has been trying for twenty years to get recognition for the invention of the Fuelstar unit, although I have to confess to being a little confused as to the actual inventor of Fuelstar. Ian Cornelius claims to have invented it, but David Butt appears to have some claim on its invention as well. Along with that, even Ken Pedlar makes claims as to having been involved with the invention. All these people wanting to claim a part in the greatest invention ever!
Originally known as ComTec, and available in various guises around the world such as "Fitch fuel catalyst", the story of Fuelstar, tin pellets and petrol tanks is an old myth. * The Fitch fuel catalyst is so secretive that it doesn't even show pictures of their invention on the website!
Surely, this must tell you that the product is designed to be bought by dumb and dumber? What reputable company behaves this way?
I have also been involved in a fascinating discussion with the International Tin Research Institute, in England. I'm awaiting a reply at this stage, because the ITRI has apparently found a "viable hypothesis" for the reason why tin pellets in your fuel line might work.
Jim Sprott's theory is outlined below.
(Update May 2008 - Fuelstar still refuses to accept testing and the long-promised tests in USA have still not happened. Surprise level - nil. On the other hand, hundreds and hundreds of people are visiting this site and finding out the truth about Fuelstar!)
I received the following e mail letter from Jim Sprott. (my replies are in red)
Dear Mr Charman
Mr Ian Cornelius of Fuelstar has forwarded me your recent emails for comment.
Thanks for the letter, Jim. I feel the best way to deal with it is to go through and put my answers in red.
In my opinion the test proposed by you could not be relied upon simply because racetrack conditions do not and cannot replicate conditions of actual use on-road or in commercial earthmoving equipment, boats etc.
I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Not only does it precisely match the use of say, a car in Auckland City – it’s a very simple matter to program in sufficient stop/start/slow/fast movement to replicate the exact conditions a vehicle would go through – but it complies with what Fuelstar itself says must happen to make their product work.
I will discuss the relevance of the commercial equipment and boats a little later.
Also, your ‘reverse’ test could not be relied upon either. It is well known that the Fuelstar provides a primary benefit by the better combustion and a secondary benefit by eradicating or substantially removing carbon and other partially burnt substances from within the combustion chambers of internal combustion engines. Once carbon and other substances have been removed it is obviously impossible for the carbon etc to be replaced for the second test; i.e. that is test without the Fuelstar. This proposition is simply impractical.
Here again we start to get to the pseudoscience. As a respected chemist, I’m astonished that you’d think some kind of residual effect could still change power output and fuel consumption to a measurable degree. Your statement that the effect is “well-known” is deliberately disingenuous. You yourself stated that the process isn’t known at all. The process of tin getting into the petrol in “sub-micron-sized particles” isn’t known and remains undescribed by any peer-reviewed science. I am 100% certain that you are aware of that, so describing it as “well-known” is not on. You admitted to me that you were unable to explain the process. No other scientist is able to explain the process either, but none of the others think it actually happens anyway.
You spoke a lot about forms of irreversible catalysation, but you are unable to describe the process in terms which is able to be written down and understood by other scientists. You are unable to state what compounds are formed, what chemical process takes place, or what chemicals are emitted from the exhaust of the process. If you could do that, it would be science. That you have not, but ascribe the process to a combination of an unknown chemical process caused by an unknown vibrational frequency is pseudoscience.
Here are some of the people who feel that Fuelstar does not actually work:
Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand
Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Auckland University
Canterbury University
Monash University, Melbourne
Automobile Association, New Zealand
Until you, or some other scientist, is able to explain how a mystical “vibrational frequency” allows tin to escape from balls of the element tin into petrol and thereby reduces fuel consumption by 12%, it can not be more than pseudoscience. The product has been tested many times by actual scientists, some of whom were paid by Mr Cornelius to evaluate his product. Not one of those scientists think Fuelstar works.
Even worse, one of Fuelstar’s main referees has told me that running Fuelstar tests on a dynamometer produced results where the power output returned to normal about 5 minutes after removing the Fuelstar unit.
Your premise is false, but I’m a fair bloke, so I’ll give you a go here.
YOU design a test which you think is fair and I’ll see whether we can go with it. I’m not stuck on using Pukekohe Racetrack – I figured it would be a nice public way for Ian Cornelius to showcase his unit and gain worldwide recognition, but my main objective is to prove, beyond any doubt whether or not Fuelstar works.
Here’s an example, which should satisfy all of the requirements:
Instead of using Pukekohe Racetrack, we’ll use a beach. I will arrange for a diesel-powered tractor to do a specified amount of work – shifting sand seems pretty obvious – for a specified time – say 4-6 hours?
You then fit a Fuelstar unit, which will be checked after use to ensure that nothing but tin pellets are in it and the tractor will then be put to work for as many hours as you deem necessary to enable the magical process to commence. I can’t imagine it would be more than 10-12 hours, but I will leave it to your discretion. 12 hours is obviously a good time period, so beach conditions are identical.
At that time, the tractor will perform the identical tasks as during the non-Fuelstar test.
Then we compare fuel usage.
If you can think of something even fairer than that, let me know, but as a scientist, you’d be aware that the only vital ingredient is science. Accordingly, the test would need to be carried out by Auckland Uniservices or some other equally-reputable organisation.
As you may know, I have been involved in hydrocarbon fuel combustion for decades, and have also studied tin-based catalytic units for many years. In fact I have acted as a consultant to the NZ Government and major commercial firms on fuel related matters.
Various products of the Fuelstar type have been developed in USA and other countries; however there can be no doubt that Fuelstar is a leader in this field.
I’m sorry, but when we’re dealing with pseudoscience, Fuelstar being a leader in the field is a lot like being “a top astrologer”.
The use of tin as a combustion catalyst has been known for about 70 years, and much experimental development of this concept has been carried out. This type of product is a prime example of a technology which has been developed by experience rather than fundamental research. Such research would probably be of benefit in providing a more complete understanding of the exact science involved; however this does not derogate from the benefits from Fuelstar. Historically some other technologies were developed in advance of the theoretical science, and subsequently fully elucidated.
However, in almost all cases where that type of thing has happened, it has become part of science because the results are actually achievable. In the case of Fuelstar, all scientific attempts to measure any change in the operation of an internal combustion engine have failed to find any.
The use of tin is not in question, however, the uses are specified by the catalyst used. Fuelstar doesn’t do that.
Again, the questions are:
How does the tin get into the petrol?
In what form does it get in?
What chemical process takes place as a result?
What are the emissions?
Fuelstar has been developed by assessing outcomes of various on-road and practical trials in actual use. One consequence of this is that it is effectively impossible to design a laboratory-type test method which replicates on-road conditions, especially regarding vibration of the units. While it is known that in practical use of Fuelstar units almost always operate as claimed, laboratory tests by persons not acquainted with the technology and the various criteria for operation cannot be relied upon.
See my above idea for a test. I am A) sick of the attitude that “other people don’t know how to test it”, which is simply dishonest; and B) the “actual trials in use” – I’ve spoken to a few of the people involved and they are a joke.
I am aware of some independent laboratory tests of this product in New Zealand, where no benefits were found. However, this statement ignores the fact that the researchers could not replicate “on-road” vibrations because the frequency, amplitude and direction
- 2 -
of vibration/s required for proper use are not known and therefore could not be replicated under laboratory conditions. Thus the tests referred to must be ignored.
This is really funny, for several reasons:
At least one of the independent laboratory tests was carried out at the expense of Mr Ian Cornelius himself! He gave the instructions for how the test was to be carried out. Funny, it still didn’t work.
The product can only be tested under “on-road” conditions?
Uh, didn’t you just say above that my “on-road” test wasn’t good enough?
Not only that, please note my bolded statement above. One of Fuelstar’s main referees has attested that Fuelstar works on a dynamometer!
And you also mention the key part. This is where I find your involvement and defence of Fuelstar just incredible.
You claim that it is a “vibrational frequency” which causes the unknown reaction.
This frequency does not exist in a lab. Or at Pukekohe Racetrack.
Despite that, all of these motors and vehicles all produce this exact same unknown frequency:
Motor mower
Motorcycles
Mopeds
Cars
Trucks
Outboard motors
Bulldozers
Locomotives
Logging equipment
Tractors
Marine diesels
any other internal combustion engine under working conditions
You are stating that every type of internal combustion engine will produce this unknown frequency and an unknown chemical reaction.
Unless it’s in a lab or Pukekohe Racetrack.
I am also aware of some work done by the University of Auckland on the metal alloy pellets. On this occasion, the result was negative to Fuelstar. However, it is clear that the researcher didn’t understand nanotechnology and his findings were clearly wrong.
Yes, Fuelstar’s note that any science which disagrees with them is well known. Again, as a scientist, and being familiar with the peer-review process, this is the sort of statement you just ought not to be making.
It is highly irresponsible for researchers to draw definitive negative conclusions when they do not understand the technology and thus their tests are unreliable. Long experience in the field of science has shown that if laboratory-type tests which do not confirm repeated “in-service” tests, it is the reliability of laboratory-type tests which should be questioned; not the many-times repeated positive outcome of practical use.
How can they understand a “technology” which uses an unknown frequency to create an unknown chemical reaction??
As above – until someone is able to specify what some of these unknowns are, is isn’t technology, it’s pseudoscience.
I have seen the test reports of tests done on Fuelstar by California Environmental Engineering in the USA, the Institute of Vocational Guidance in Hong Kong and the University of Kaohsiung in Taiwan and others and numerous oter scientific reports and I fully support their positive findings.
That’s a disgrace.
The trials were conducted a month apart and the machines were not under the control of CEE during that time. That is so wrong it’s laughable. You cannot imagine my astonishment that anyone would say anything about those findings, other than they are completely unreliable regarding any claims Fuelstar make. I note that one of the scientists was at least honest enough to state that no conclusions could be drawn on the effectiveness of Fuelstar as a result of his tests. The tests may well prove there’s been an improvement. They in no way prove Fuelstar had any part in it.
Likewise, the positive trial results achieved by various trucking fleets in New Zealand are too consistent and too plentiful for them to be discarded as anecdotal and worthless. In my opinion, there is no doubting the veracity of the Fuelstar technology.
I’ve given you a pretty extensive list of doubters already.
I will add to that that I’ve spoken to many of the trucking fleets who happily use Fuelstar. Not one of them has any information from a scientific viewpoint, but from a humour perspective, they have been invaluable. Here are a couple:
The Truckie: “our bulldozer is where we’ve had the best results.....” ..goes on to state what a wonder it is now.
I asked: “did you do any maintenance at the same time that the Fuelstar was added?”
The Truckie: “Yeah, new fuel injection unit, etc, etc”
QED
Another truckie told me his best result was in his Toyota Hi-Lux, and he spun a yarn about how he forgot to disconnect the fuel injection unit filter – which Fuelstar suggests you should – and it got blocked, which proved that the tin got into the petrol! I was suitably impressed and asked:
“How do you know the tin got in?’
He replied: “It had all gunged up the filter and when we took the filter out, you could see the tin in it.”
I asked him “How did you know it was tin?”
He replied “We scraped it out and it was magnetic.”
QED
The constant vague references to people who like it are no more than a blokes’ version of the housewife telling her best friend about this marvellous tea-leaf reader down the street. When those recommendations are broken down, they amount to a lot of gossip about confirmation bias.
For you to suggest that tin-based catalysis of hydrocarbon fuels is bogus and pseudoscience is totally without foundation.
I’m not suggesting that tin-based catalysis is pseudoscience, I’m suggesting that Fuelstar’s claims that tin gets into the petrol by way of an unknown vibrational frequency releasing unknown quantities of tin, in unknown compounds, into the fuel which then catalyses the fuel in an unknown process, creating unknown emissions is pseudoscience. The tin-based catalysis claimed simply doesn't exist.
What “evidence” there is, is either flawed, highly questionable, or contradictory.
There is however, one last matter I wish to touch on, and it was actually Fuelstar who provided the most invaluable lead – California environmental engineers. I happen to know an environmental engineer in California and was asking him about the firm who did the testing when we got onto the subject of emissions.
If, of course, the process works, it is using tin as a catalyst.
That being the case, it is emitting tin particles into the environment.
Until we know what those tin particles might be, it is of concern to both the Ministry for the Environment and the National Poisons Centre. I have spoken to both organisations and can confirm that an unknown quantity of tin particles being emitted, especially extremely minute particles of tin-based compounds, would be of immediate concern.
Thus becomes the over-riding conundrum for Fuelstar – if it worked, it might be killing you..
Alan Charman
Update May 2008. The only correspondence worth noting that I've received in the meantime is the following, from Jim Sprott, in January this year:
6) Results achieved by a Fuelstar distributor in America have been successful to the point where they have committed to spend $US50,000 on verification testing to TMC RP-1102 (SAE J1321) Type II Fuel Consumption Test. In case you don't know, TMC and SAE are acronyms for the Truck Maintenance Council and the Society of Automotive Engineers. This test standard is considered by the US trucking industry to be absolute.
As I said to Jim in reply - I agree that both TMC and SAE are entirely reputable bodies whose opinion and standards are beyond reproach.
Alas, in the intervening four months, no further action has been taken. I have written to both TMC and SAE asking to be informed of tests and results as I am happy to publish the results, whatever they are. To date, no application has been made for testing at either organisation.
Copyright © 2008 Immortality Ltd
Other bits of pseudoscience pretending to save you fuel: