Posted on 07/31/2008 11:54:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
People who wanted their devices to be verified would pay a fee. I made that clear in my prior post. Who pays for the Underwriter’s Laboratory costs?
“If the testing individual made $30 an hour, his salary and benefits would probably run around $2 grand per week. You should be able to get the testing done in three days, four days max.”
Your estimates are drastically under actual testing costs.
Test equipment and computers initial costs: $100k
Two people to setup for test including time to study new design and produce procedures: 160 hrs * $30 = $5k
Three test runs with each configuration: $4k
Test results evaluations: $5k
Independent Q/A of test results: $20k.
I hate to break it to you, but I can get my vehicle tested with the top equipment there is, that costs easily that much altogether, by paying a one time fee of about $700 dollars for seven years. It’s called a maintenance contract.
I’m not sure you have smog tests in your state, but the equipment costs about $40,000 dollars from what I hear, and I pay something like $37.50 for the test.
The padding done in your estimate is extensive. No thanks. It doesn’t take that much effort.
Test the vehicle with the device. Test the vehicle without the device. Is there a difference or not?
Huntling says he is getting 25% more mileage. From the site he references for getting his technology he is doing something wrong. Read the following and laugh that sensible people would take this seriously!
It is a Do-It-Yourself, affordable and SIMPLE technology. Water is supplemental to gasoline or diesel fuel - I have doubled fuel economy (61 MPG) in my Toyota Corolla 1999, and many more have doubled or even tripled their mileage. Too good to be true? Read on...
You may already know that water is supplemental to gasoline (petrol) or diesel fuel. However it is possible and VERY EASY to extract energy from water to run your car on water too.
We have water-to-energy converters running in all our vehicles since 2006. YOU CAN, TOO! I’m about to show you a SIMPLE technology you can have right now, called . It’s one of the most PRACTICAL free-energy devices, marked by extraordinary simplicity and effectiveness.
It is NOT my invention. And it’s not new. Based on old “forgotten” US Patents we have developed devices that use a little electricity out of your car/truck battery, to separate water into a gas called “HHO” (2 parts Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen).
HHO, also called Brown’s Gas, Water-Fuel or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy - while the end product is just WATER!
Mobile Magazine says: HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the chemical stability of water.
I am a test engineer by profession and title. I will stick with my estimates. You are totally off since you have no idea what it takes to test a unique system that must be setup to specific test conditions and verified that no hanky-panky has been installed that may fake test results.
Yes, the measure the same thing over and over and over everyday of the year, year after year. I also doubt your 'hearsay' cost for the equipment.
Until you have seen the device or tested the device, your words are meaningless. If others have seen or tested the device, reference me to their findings.
OK. Please tell me how you would set up to test his claims and provide an estimate.
So you’re telling me that you don’t have the aptitude to run tests with a device on the vehicle, then remove that device and and run more tests, then compare the results. Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
My words are not meaningless. You cannot fault my words so you resort to this generalization.
Well, my car dealer tests a wide spectrum of things on a number of different vehicles. Their equipment is expensive. And I’m not bothered by your judgment regarding my assessment of the cost of the equipment they use. And yes, dealerships do run tests on vehicles that were not manufactured by their parent company. I wonder how they do that without charging $27,000 a pop and taking weeks to do the work.
I have the aptitude and have given you my estimate of the costs. When you say it can be done cheaper you cannot give a basis for you opinion but resort to character slurs. PLEEZ!
BTW, they will charge about $100 to tell you what your engine check light code means!
You claim the $27k is too much but won't provide a test plan to support a lower value ...
I would confirm the specific tuning recommended by the inventor, the specific process parameters recommended by the inventor, and would run a test using the equipment provided by the inventor within those parameters.
First I would inspect the equipment so that I understood what the device actually was. I would also hook the vehicle up to equipment that would monitor what I put the engine through during the process. I would also monitor the emissions from the vehicle.
I would set up a way of introducing a specific amount of fuel into the vehicle.
I would idle the vehicle for five minutes and run it at the equivalent of 60 mph for about 15 minutes.
I would turn off the vehicle and see how much fuel had been used.
I would print out the data obtained from the engine during the process.
I would return the vehicle to the manufacturer’s specifications and run the test again under the exact same circumstances.
I would turn off the vehicle and see how much fuel had been used.
I would reference the data that I had detected and make a determination regarding the performance of the test. I would look for things that might have been influenced by something other than the device. I would make note of any such finding.
Since this would be the type of thing I did all the time, I would complete this task in two to three days. If it took three days, I would probably charge about $2,000 for the service.
You comments that this device doesn’t do what it claims are meaningless. You don’t know that any more than I do. And thus your those comments are meaningless.
I could say that it definitively does work. And without testing that would also be meaningless. Until tests are run, whatever conclusion we come to is unproven.
If you need a translation, that means unscientific.
1. run one test with the device.
2. run one test without the device.
3. report on the differences observed.
Yep, that’s worth every bit of that $27,000. /s
This is 90% scam, 10% truth.
Brown's gas is a proven technology, but it doesn't do what these clowns say it does. It will generate about a 5% improvement in fuel effeciency in a gas engine, but less in a diesel. It does so by improving atomization, and by smothing flame travel in the combustion chamber. All of these things can be done better by other means at less cost.
This is a take-off on the operation run by George Watson in British Columbia. He also makes wild claims, but has failed to back them up at any of his demonstrations.
Anyone that claims more than a 5% gain from a Brown's generator is just plain lying. More improvement can be had, but only after expensive engine modifications, and those modifications will in most cases in the U.S. result in a vehicle that will not pass a smog test initial visual inspection.
Thank you for your additional comments.
Tore apart many Corvairs to make nice beach buggy's. The 140hp version was my favorite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.