Product discussion: 10% ~ 40% increase in MPG

***** Major edit *****

Ok guys ... first of all, let me apologize for a big mess in my explanations. This is a product developed by my uncle's company in Korea. So far, until recently, it was licensed to sell in Japan exclusively under the brand name CARUP. The license has expired, and now they are selling it as CAR-BRA (Car Bio Reduction Activity).

For those of you who don't know what this is ...
It's a product that improves mileage, performance, and reduce emissions.

So far, my poor attempt to translate and explain the inner workings of this device (from Korean to English) has been a disaster - and I deserved all the flaming for it (and the non-sense).

I thought I got it, but after much criticism from you guys, I pretty much forced the company to hire a professional translator to get the explanation right.

So... here we go. - I'm copy-pasting this information from the Powerpoint presentation file. If anyone wants to read the actual file, email me, and I'll try to send it over (if you have a big email account).

*****************************

<font color="red"> Summary of Carbra: </font>
Development of fuel saver equipped with revolutionary function and easy-to-use.

We could know the principle after we observed that car fuel
efficiency increases 10~15%due to enhancement of engine combustion
andexisting exhaust decreases by coatingexternal surfaces of cylinder block
of gasoline or diesel engine with paint (Coating paint that generates minus ion)
containing Brita ore powder etc.

We investigated this as a measure to enhance CO2 gas due to contraction of Kyoto protocol
Primary subject : We designated it as enhancing car fuel efficiency

<font color="red"> * The reason why fuel efficiency rises when you put CAR-BRA into auxiliary tank of cooling water </font>
Asakawa effect : Flame combustion speed rises when electric field (magnetic field) is formed around flame.


* Left candle: Before magnetic field is generated
* Right candle: After magnetic field is generated

<font color="red"> * Theory about enhancement for flame effect through electric field or magnetic field </font>
1) Malinowski : Flame combustion speed of combined fire(&#50668;&#54844;&#54633;&#54868;&#51116;, &#20104;&#28151;&#21512;&#28779;&#28797 rises through electric field.
A.E.malinowski : J. Chimie Physique(U.S.S.R) 21, p469(1924)
2) Guenault et al, : Enhancement of combustion speed is achieved by increase of fire area through applying electric field.
This will increase combustion speed in appearance.
E.M Guenault & R. V. Wheeler: J. Chem.soc.2, p195(1931) E.M Guenault & R. V. Wheeler: J. Chem.soc.2, p2788(1932)
3) Calocate et al : Stability of torrent combined fire by providing magnetic field.
H.F.Calocate & R.N.Pease : Ind. Engng Chem. Ing,Edn. 43,1, p2726(1951)
4) Kono et al, : Control of soot particle generation may be possible through electric field.
M.kono,K. Imamura. & S. Kumagai: 18th Symp.(Int)on Combustion, pp. 1167-1174(1971)
5) Asakawa : Combustion speeds up by providing fire with electric field. &#12300;Asakawa effect&#12301;
"Asakawa Effect" Yuukichi Asakawa : Nature, vol361, No.1557, pp220-221, May20,(1976).
6) Asakawa Yukichi : Fire shape had been found to change and combustion speed also had been found to vary
when we apply electric field to combustion field. We discuss application to combustion, heat transfer and speed
up of vaporization in detail. Study of electric heat, 26, 101, p134(1987)
7) Fujita et al. : Oxygen supply for fire has been increased and time for overall combustion is reduced by applying magnetic field.
O. Fujita et al,: 27th Symp.(iNT)on Combustion,(in print)(q998)

<font color="red"> * Role of CAR-BRA at auxiliary tank of cooling water </font>

1. Install CAR-BRA at auxiliary tank
2. Cooling water at the inside of auxiliary tank is transformed into negative ion water
3. - Engine startup -
Temperature increase of cooling water due to raised engine heat
4. Cooling water circulates through auxiliary tank
5. Overall cooling water is transformed into negative ion water

Amount of negative ion generated ncreases by heating :
Exhaust amount of minus increases by
temperature rise, but change isn’t so apparent at 30&#8764;60&#8451;. It increases 20&#8764;30 times when Temperature raised to 100&#8451;
(Painting technology : Volume 144 July, August 2003 p33~)


<font color="red"> Effect of CAR-BRA </font>

1. Fuel saving effect  
2. Noise reduction of engine
rotation
3. Increase of horsepower
4. Drastically reducing exhaust
gas (CO, HC)
5. Reducing frequency of
engine oil exchanges

There may be a difference per conditions like as engine displacement, year type, manufacturer etc., but effect gets maximized in case of old cars. And almost fuel saving effects are above 20%.

Promoting perfect combustion through magnetic field of negative ion thus inducing drastic reduction of exhaust gas and enhancement of horsepower

The attached content shows that maximum torque value rises remarkably after one month.






Exhaust Reduction Test:



Authentication Marks:




*************

Ok, that's about it ...
So I hope this makes better sense to you guys ...
But I know some of you guys might still have reserve thoughts about it - that it wont work, .. so, I'm still going to go ahead with the independent tests by 3 testors from here, as well as get a dyno run by someone credible from the forum - in Toronto.

I'll post up those when I Get them.


Thanks for putting up with me so far.

All your comments (excluding racial / faimly related) are very welcome.

OH... forgot to add...
this product lasts 3 ~ 5 years..
and yes.. it works on diesels...

For more info, or want to see clips of the Japan TV show on this product: http://www.fuel-boost.com

BS. First to call it And to be fair if you look at the candles in the picture the one on the right is shorter than the one on the left. This imples that more wax has been burned. So sure it has a bigger flame, but that can be expected as more fuel has been burnt.

And its really easy to manipulate the flames of candles. Trim the wic a little shorter and you have a smaller flame.

Thanks David,
For the comment ...
As for the candle, the objective of that is to show how it burns "Better" with the bioglass. Since it burns better, of course, the candle is giong to be shorter than the one on the left.

You're right... it does imply that more wax has been burned. That's exactly the point though.

The concept is to burn more fuel - instead of having 60% of the fuel get wasted.

You can do more research on this, but only 40% of your fuel actually get burned.

So, don't get confused with "this burns more fuel - meaning you lose fuel". It burns more fuel EFFICIENTLY ... so that you may get 50% or better burn.

So ... if you claim this to be "BS" based on your explanation of the candle and that this thing burns more fuel ... you just ended up proving that this works.

And .. about the manipulation of the candles - not everyone in this world are scammers who do anything to trick people into buying their products.
Over 100 employees work for this company, and I don't think they are working hard everyday to "best scam" people.

And what about the TV NEWS programs? These are not infomercials, but rather independent tests. They put their TV station's reputation on the line - like CBS .. or FOX.

I think... the best thing is to have someone here test it for free. I'd be happy to supply one to one of the moderators... or trusted member .. to try it.

I already had someone on the Supra forum try it, and he got 20% better MPG.

So prove yourself. Whats the difference between the thermal effeciency of a motor and the bulk mechanical effeciency?

"It burns more fuel EFFICIENTLY " Don't you mean it burns fuel more effeciently?

What type effects will this have on horse power and torque? Whats the relationship of HP to torque?

In brief can you please explain the key differences between a gas motor and a diesel.

How about a short explanation of all the parasitic losses a car has to deal with.


And now that we have covered the basics. What is the main elements in the composition of glasses? What exactly makes this glass Bio.

Also please provide linkes to the 6 patents that pertain to this product.

You can do more research on this, but only 40% of your fuel actually get burned.

Click to expand...

Blatanly wrong. If this were the case you would do better business selling a bottle to hang off the exhaust pipe the catch the extra 60% of the fuel you are spitting out.

Hi David,

is this a test of my knowledge in diesel cars?
Looks to me, you already know these questions you are asking me.

"Whats the relationship of HP to Torque"
"Explain the key differences between a gas motor and diesel"
"Explain the parasitic losses a car has to deal with"

I don't understand why I have to answer these questions, and why this has anything to do with this topic.


I didn't mean to offend you or anything, I just responded to what you wrote, because I thought you misunderstood the concept - especially with the candles.

The patent numbers are found at the bottom of the website:
www.fuel-boost.com. You can look it up through the patent database of Japan / Korea. US patents (for the same technology) is still pending since it just got filed.

The bioglass is based on the ASAKAWA Theory - which you can also research online.


And yes... it does burn fuel more efficiently - rather than having a lot of it wasted.

I suggest looking through Car and Driver's recent issue (cant remember exactly which month) where the editor wrote about how we still haven't reached the full potential of gasoline engines - in that since only 40% of fuel get burned, the MPG can be greatly increased if we can make the car burn fuel more efficiently.

I wanted to introduce to you guys a new product that gives 10% ~ 40% increase in MPG.

Click to expand...

OK, My lifetime mpg is 59.4, that's over 80,000 miles. I have a full set of records tank by tank.

I get 1500km to a tank. (not the 850 you were getting)


You say I'll get 66mpg, or maybe 84 mpg? (+10% - +40%)
Given my normal range mpg's the efficacy will be obvious.

Send me a sample and I'll check it out, full reports back to the tdiclub forums.

OK?

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session1/2004_deer_fairbanks.pdf

Page 44 of 47

"Current Diesel Efficiency: 38%"
"Potential Diesel efficiency by 2014: ~ 60%
Waste heat utilization major contribution"

This is a presentation by the Government, Department of Energy.

"Blatanly wrong" .. you quoted me.. for this information.
Again ... I am NOT giving false information, like you are continuously trying to imply.

Hi David,

is this a test of my knowledge in diesel cars?

Looks to me, you already know these questions you are asking me.

Click to expand...

Um, yes? Actually most of the questions pertain equally to gas engines.

Lets see, you show up here claiming some miracle product that will revolutionize the internal combustion engine and I am just asking to give us an idea of you knowledge of engines and cars as a whole.

Most other "vendors" on the board are very knowledgable of their products and offer explanations to potential customers questions.


And if you still think this is really irrelevant then we do I have a thread with a 160+ post on it about a different fuel saving idea that coveres all of these topics?

Hi GDR,

great to see someone other than David is posting here.
I think it has to do with my driving style ... I had a 2000 Jetta TDI .. and best I could do was 850. 1500km on a tank if very good. That's almost double what I got.

Thanks for the offer, but let me try to find someone local here in Toronto first to test it. If not, I'll let you know.

(snip)in that since only 40% of fuel get burned,(snip)

Click to expand...

It is totally false.

THAT is why he is quizzing you. You display your ignorance with the above statement. And it has nearly everything to do with this topic.


David, you beat me this time, but I believe I'm still ahead

"Most other "vendors" on the board are very knowledgable of their products and offer explanations to potential customers questions.
"

David ...
Like you said.. most vendors are knowledgable of their product and offer explanations to potential customers.
I have explained my product in detail ... and offer explanation to potential customers.

The bioglass is based on the ASAKAWA Theory - which you can also research online.

Click to expand...

I'm a relatively savvy internet user, but I can't find any obvious results for the ASAKAWA Theory, could you direct me somewhere?

According to your website, an electro-magnetic field can increase burn times. I'm skeptical of the jump from better burning to better instant combustion in a reciprocating engine, never-mind not being in a perfect, controlled electro-magnetic environment Furthermore, how will introducing ions to coolant create this environment?

And what is FeTio3? Did you mean FeTiO3.

Lastly, the the oxides you mention are basic iron corrosion: rust. And these are fulfilled. This is neutral.

To create a electromagnetic field, you need to create flux. How do your ions create this. Adding sodium chloride to water will create ions, but not a field. How exactly are you creating a magnetic field without poles?

Help me understand here.

This bio glass is going to put a negative charge on the coolant. Then the charge is going to leave the coolant, go through the grounded metal cylinder walls, and into the combustion chamber?

How are these ions going to affect the various sensors of the car? You know there are probes which stick into the coolant bottle to check its level.

What happens when I plug in my coolant heater? It is grounded as well. Would the ions then travel along into the ground to my houses eletrical system?

Also, will this charged coolant be more slippery, such that it would cause coolant migration?

If you send me one of these units I will gladly try it out. I'll even pay to ship it back to you. I get about 45 mpg because I have a heavy right foot. It would be nice to have some more millage. I am well known on the club so people will believe my report of the product. I can give you my address in a private message if you like.

-Jason

Nick ... if I'm wrong about the 40% efficiency ..
than what is the efficiency? 100%?
What is Car and Driver editor talking about.. when he wrote that cars are still only burning 40% of fuel ...

Or the Department of Energy..stating that Diesel engines only have 38% fuel efficiency.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session1/2004_deer_fairbanks.pdf

Page 44.

Please explain.

THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE CHEMICAL MAKEUP OF MY G12! I don't know about that buddy...

-J

If 60% of the gasoline that went into the engine of our gas car went right out the tailpipe, the cat would surely react some of that and get hot to the point of catching things on fire....

EDIT: what we are talking about here is mechanical efficiency. Practically all of the fuel is burned, but not all of it is converted into kinetic energy. Some is turned into heat, some is turned into sound, etc.

OH, and how will this extend the OCI like THE SITE HOSTING YOUR PICS says? IF not all the fuel was burning now, then burning more of it surely would cause more contaminate to get into the oil reducing its service life.

-J

What he (and you)are doing is mistating a concept by stating that only 40% of the fuel gets burnt, implying the other 60% is wasted out the tailpipe, which is blatantly false.

It is NOT a trivial distinction, but rather gets to the heart of your fundamental misunderstanding of how IC engines work.

I don't even know why I'm entertaining you. You should be forewarned: we here are pretty savvy and experimentalist bunch. Respond to other's offers to test out your product or you'll rapidly lose credibility and get eaten alive here.

And please don't claim to be a vendor when you have all of six (no, now seven ) posts all on this thread... come on! Your a neon green newbie pushing a product. All of our vendors have been here awhile as respected members of the community, and went through the registration process'.


Oh, and

What is Car and Driver editor talking about.. when he wrote that cars are still only burning 40% of fuel ...

Click to expand...

Ummm, just proving that he's an uneducated, stupid dumbf**k?

You'll certainly score no points with this crowd with appeals to authority. Certainly, that automotive journalist is lacking the basics.

Talk about a hot topic!
A lot of that sounds similar to something I could say regarding paint:
"Sherwin Williams 'Duration' paint is the best for my business because it contains Cristobalite--which helps your paint be stronger, more flexible, and last 40% longer!"

Of course the average person won't know that Cristobalite is a polymorph of quartz, meaning that it is composed of the same chemistry, SiO2, but has a different structure. Both quartz and cristobalite are polymorphs with all the members of the Quartz Group which also include coesite, tridymite and stishovite....

Where am I getting with this? The general public generally won't take time to discern if a product is smoke and mirrors, or if it is genuine. Most are like sheep, and behave as such. This group is, for the most part, educated, informed, and inquisitive...and we are VERY wary of someone who comes on here trying to sell a miracle product--especially since most of us believe that we already own one!
-BB

PS: For the record I do love Sherwin. Duration and Superpaint are the way to go!
PPS: I have nothing against the Japanese, but after seeing a few seasons of MSX the fact that "this has been sold for 3-years in Japan" really does not give me a lot of confidence--people are people wherever you go...they love getting something for nothing.
PPPS: Don't believe me? Let's use this product with this product! We'll get 35 more HP, as well as 70% more fuel economy! That means that StealthTDI with his 60.8 MPG run will get 104 MPG!!! Better than the Lupo!

Here is the DIY

1) Go to local recycling bin and remove small tin can small enough to fit in coolant resevoir.
2) Go to local hobby shop and pick up package of marbles.
NOTE VERY VERY IMPORTANT, THEY MUST BE GREEN AND BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RED WILL NOT WORK!!!!! AND PURPLE MAKE MAKE YOUR CAR SMELL LIKE BLUEBERRIES
3) Poke can full of holes that are as large as possible that wont allow marbles through.
4) Fill with marbles.
5) Hang can with marbles from your rearview mirror.
6) Enjoy the additonal 40% increase in MPG.

PS. If you paint the can purple it will give you an extra 10% :O


Seriously though. There are quire a few people on here who like to do MPG testing and drive long distances daily and have kept meticulous records who would probabily be willing to test your products. Saddly they may not be your next door neighbors, but they are respected board members and we would give credibility to their results.

When I saw this post I thought, "how did this get here?" Let's put some acetone in our tanks instead. Or get that tornado thing.

Come on, folks. Don't engage, it only encourages him.

I have you all beat in terms of efficiency when I take my bike for a ride... But I guarantee that what comes out of my tailpipe isn't 60% unburned

The poster obviously doesn't understand the difference between efficiency and fuel-burn percentage. Anyone not knowing this difference has no business touting claims of fuel-savings.

Hmm..

Ok guys ... let me just clear up one thing .. i never stated that 60% of fuel go out the tailpipe. Like David said.. if that happens... than... we'd be driving a suicide mission... trailing fuel whereever we go.

I dont know why anyone isn't replying to this:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session1/2004_deer_fairbanks.pdf

But even the government states that diesel engines are only 38% fuel efficient. Nevermind what the Car and Driver guys said, ...and nevermind where the other 60% goes ... the fact of the matter is, we don't get 100% efficient burn of the fuel.

The products like turbonator .. or torando simply pushes in more air into the intake ... . Just cuase these products gave poor results, it doesnt mean that this product has to be under the same judgement = BS product, even before anyone here actually tried it.

So....
In conclusion, I will take your recommendations, and have two people try the product.

I wanted someone local (since I've met a few local TDI's back in the days...) .. but anyone who is widely respected here.. would do.

I do... however.. have some criteria.
I saw another post here about how 60% of members here get 40 ~ 45 MPG. I would like someone who get around this much MPG to test it, and not someone who gest 60 or more MPG.

Secondly, I'd like someone who is not biased to test the product properly.

Someone who has a pre-judgement on the product (ie: that the product is BS) is less likely to conduct a proper test.

I would supply the product, and pay for shipping (to and from). Test period will be for 2 weeks, unless the person wants to buy it after that. I will pay for shipping (back to me) as well.

Although this product has been tested for several cars and SUV's, a VW TDI - never tested before. So, I'm not quite sure exactly how much of a gain it will have for TDI's. - Another reason why I wanted someone to try it even before trying to sell it.


As to everyone portraying me as a cheap sales guy trying to scam everyone with a "miracle product" ...
1. I'm a business development manager for an ebusiness firm.
2. Trying to do this on the side, to help my uncle (who works for this company).
3. Thought that since this product has worked well on my Audi A4 1.8, and my friend's Toyota Supra, it actually works - and one of the first places I wanted to get feedback was here - since I know how smart you guys are and savvy when it comes to TDI's (and cars).

So... I'm not asking for your respect or approval - hey.. come to think of it.. I might've been one of the guys here flaming such a product too ... had it been 3 years ago .. when I was a fulltime member here.

So ...
Any volunteers or nominations for testing?

around 35 ~ 45 MPG ...
2 weeks period
I'll pay for everything
unbaised testing (even it's bad results, its ok.)



If the testing goes bad: well, I'll give you guys the last laugh and tell me what an idiot I am.

If the testing goes well: well, I hope this product really does help some of you save some money on gas - even further. Nothing more.

I updated the first post, but .. just to point out..
(since this issue has come up many times here already):
US Department of Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2004/session1/2004_deer_fairbanks.pdf
Page 36

I admit... my fault guys.
I should've said ... that only 40% of the fuel is used to move the car forward (or backward) ...

not 40% of fuel get burned.

It was an error of wording on my part.

Sorry~

THe last six tanks I have averaged about 43 MPG. Send me the thing and I will test it. email or PM me.

If you want to prove the product's efficacy beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply offer to pay for one or two before/after dynometer tests (same dyno, same day, same car): much, much, much more convincing.


Send me the product and pay for 2 dyno tests (who knows what the typical cost is?? Anyone?) I will give it an impartial test on the dynometer. Having a skeptic test is much better, no? Fuel usage will be tracked by miles driven on the dyno divided by quantity fuel used (as measured by graduated cylinder) using the exact same speeds and conditions in each case.

Dyno is the way to go...it removes nearly all the human induced bias', intentional and subconcious.


Edit: just so you know, we've gone through this stuff before, where several members offered up their time and cars as guinea pigs in a test of an additive. Another member and I collected data from the group of 8 and performed the statistical analysis for and possible statistically significant results with the additive. Results of 8 member's cars over tens of thousands of miles over months showed a null result. End result: a lot of dissapointed onlookers/lurkers and that guy getting a lot of free labor of of myself and the other guy.

Dyno test is much shorter, more conclusive, and doesn't waste our time/effort. Also, you get to dissapoint/delight people that much sooner and get it over with.

The anecdotal/testimonial approach really won't fly here. I suggest: just get it over with as fast and as impartially as possible on the dyno. There will be a lot less doubters that way.

This is a joke right? I mean this is a spoof? This is hands down the lamest thing since the vornado...

Do a double blind test. Use two devices with one neutered so it doesn't work. The installer shouldn't know which is neutered (the first "blind"). The operators shouldn't know which is neutered (the second blind). THEN compare the fuel economy differences.
One of the vehicles will have show a 10 to 40% improvement as claimed, and the other will have to show a zero improvement, and by golly the improvement had better be in the vehicle with the operational device, for me to lend any credence to the product.

Here's how tough it will be for you to get me to even entertain any thought of testing it for myself: I have a technique that allows a 60% improvement in fuel economy. My average in a prior Passat was 52 mpg. I was able to obtain an independently verified 83 mpg in the same car in a mileage competition. That's an increase of 60% for zero dollars.
My present Passat averages 48 mpg. In this past year's mileage competition, one in which two other TDIClub members drove my car over 500 miles, the return was 77 mpg for an improvement of 60% for zero dollars.
You'd have to pay me a per mile fee to make a mere 40% improvement cost effective.
Good bye.
<edit> Unless you think it will add another 40% on top of my 60% for a 108 mpg figure. If you feel that it will do all that, then I'll install two of them for an 80% boost in addition to my 60% for a new total of 150 mpg. <end edit>