|
| |
EeFuel additive gets flatline results on heavy-duty rigs test
A fleet in California that has multiple trucks taking the same route every day hauling lumber out and wood chips back, ran three of their trucks for a week using the eeFuel additive, but saw no improvement in mileage.
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2008
A curtain van, similar to the trailer being
used by the fleet hauling lumber from Anderson to Eureka,
California; and wood chips back. |
|
|
I met Mike Forman at the eeFuel "launch" event in Livermore, California last month. He was gung ho about the eeFuel product, having seen improvement in his own heavy rigs. Being in a big-rig towing company, he has relationships with most of the trucking companies in the region, so he anticipated that he would be in a good position to promote the product to them.
He said he would be having one of the companies that has a fleet of trucks driving the same route every day, test the product in a controlled arrangement. The first fleet he had talked to backed out of running such a test, wanting to wait for data from others. Another
fleet (who need to be anonymous) agreed to run the test.
EeFuel, is formulated by H2Oil
and was recently introduced to the United States for distribution by multi-level
marketing group, Fuel Legacy.
Eefuel has been commercially available in Asia and Europe for about a decade,
run for several billion miles in all; and allegedly improves mileage by an average
of about ten to fifteen percent. The inventors say that the
additive works by increasing vaporization and by catalyzing a more efficient
burn of the fuel, resulting in increased power and mileage, and decreasing
emissions.
The test on the fleet started last week and concluded a couple of days ago. Three trucks had the additive added to the fuel in the ratio recommended. The remaining trucks, running the same route on the same days, had no additive. None of the drivers were informed that the test was taking place. Only the shop foreman, who filled up the trucks with fuel,
knew. They keep very close records of fuel usage and mileage.
The rigs travel on a very difficult stretch of road that has five or six challenging passes. It's about 107 miles one way. The curtain van trucks take lumber one direction, then wood chips back. "It's about as tough a challenge as a truck can have,"
Mike told me the day before the test concluded. The baseline mileage for these trucks is in the region of 3.6 to 3.9 mpg.
Today Mike informed me that the test result were in and they were not good.
He said the fleet "saw no change in fuel
economy."
Mike wasn't necessarily expecting them to get huge improvements. "Like I said when we were talking on the phone the other day, I don't think this was a real life driving situation -- not because it wasn't the same driver in the same truck on the same route with the same weight, but because it was such a difficult route. The many steep grades from here to the coast offer little for cruising time. The throttle spends most of its time either completely on the floor to climb grades or completely off and using the Jake Brakes to descend on the other side."
He continued: "I have had other reports that are very good but they are not as reliable because they are not using regular routes and weights so we can accurately quantify their
results.
Three of the ten New Energy Congress members who have been testing eeFuel in
their vehicles, have likewise reported no significant change in mileage.
Three saw mileage improvement in the range of ten percent.
We have been looking forward to the results from the above fleet test, because
it is a much better test, with tight controls. On these trucks the
additive had no effect on their mileage, contrary to the expectations based on
the mode of action alleged by the inventors.
# # #
Feedback
Response from Inventor
On July 20, 2008, inventor, Richard Hicks, from H2OIL Corporation
wrote:
Sterling,
Thanks for keeping me in the loop, excellent write up.
However, eeFuel is a cumulative effect fuel additive. It takes time for the fuel economy to build. For heavy duty trucks it is not unusual to take several weeks to reach the full benefit. For some trucks, the first 2 weeks could even show a 5% fuel economy penalty.
Unfortunately Mikes type of application will always return a close to zero result for exactly the reasons he specified. The trucks are primarily full throttle uphill and off the gas downhill. With the gas pedal fully depressed the fuel pump gives the same volume of fuel per injection, which would naturally return exactly the same mileage figures. All that would happen when using eeFuel is there would be an increase in power for the same volume of fuel. This power increase would all be used in climbing the hills. We had exactly the same result from a fleet of diesel taxis which spend all day going up and down the hills in Hong Kong.
On July 20, 2008, Sterling replied:
I'm not seeing the logic in your argument. If in two trucks all things
are the same except that one truck is able to use fuel more efficiently, the
truck that uses fuel more efficiently will travel further for fuel consumed.
Yes, going up hill with pedal to the floor, the rate of fuel pumping into the
engine will be the same on both trucks, but one will be going further for each
gallon of fuel burned, and it will go faster. So when it comes time to
fill up again, the more efficient vehicle will not require as much fuel, and
will thus register a higher mpg result.
One July 20, 2008, Richard replied:
Sorry, but it does not work this way. The truck will not travel further, it will travel faster. Unfortunately, faster does not figure into miles per gallon.
On July 20, 2008, Sterling replied:
This response does not strike me as being correct. What am I missing?
* * * *
Takes time to clear combustion chamber surfaces to become catalytically
active
On July 26, 2008, Richard Hicks write:
Sorry about taking so long to respond regarding your comments on the flat-line test with
*** trucks. I did not have sufficient time previously to give you a proper reply.
As I tried to explain earlier, eeFuel is a cumulative effect additive. It takes some time to reach the full fuel economy benefit. With regular gasoline powered automobiles this conditioning period is typically 3 to 5 tanks of fuel. However, for heavy duty diesel engines this period is typically 6 to 8 weeks.
The delay is caused by the time required to effectively clean away accumulated combustion chamber deposits (CCDs) in the engines. We need a clean metal surface in order to use our nanotechnology to convert this surface to be catalytically active.
There is no way this could be achieved with the *** trucks running for only one week.
In their defense, Fuel Legacy were unaware of this extra long conditioning period required for heavy duty diesel engines because they were initially appointed by H2OIL for MLM sales to the consumer market only. Heavy duty truck applications would normally come under our industrial division. For that reason we did not give them the necessary educational tools to properly approach this type of application.
Also, I stick by my original comment regarding power increase and fuel economy. We have been in this business for over 20 years. Experience has taught us which applications show potential for improved fuel economy and which do not. Even if SPI ran the required conditioning time, this application would probably still show no fuel economy benefits.
Once the CCDs have been cleaned, eeFuel significantly improves the whole combustion event, resulting directly in increased power. If this extra power is used to go faster, then the potential increase in fuel economy will be wasted. However, if the operator backs off the gas to maintain the original speed, then fuel economy will obviously improve.
* * * *
See also
|
|
|
Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan July 19, 2008
Last updated September 05, 2008
|
| |
|
Feed