Vortex to save fuel?

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
I was saying that it is not the numbers that matter in itself, but his own experience before and after, the rest is bullshit. So do your own experience!

So needless to give figures, QED.
You might as well post saying "it's great, try it".

if you had taken the time to read: "CO has gone from 0,78 to 0,018 is divided by approximately 4 between before and after" After if that does not interest you, go your way!

Janic wrote:
NB: the last vehicle has cited 0.00 200.000% km past! (Finds a new vehicle that displays 0.00% CO!)

Who knows how your vehicle would display without Vortex

there are none so deaf as that one who does not want to hear. Take at least the time to review the experience and record.

[Gaston]

if you had taken the time to read: "CO has gone from 0,78 to 0,018 is divided by approximately 4 between before and after"

Figure given several posts later and not on the same car.

The "Focus of 1999 gasoline" went from how much to 0.00%

After if it does not interest you, on your way!

It is precisely because I care that I mind when giving figures without point of comparison.

But if you can not stand the questioning, I let you spread your certainties.

[Gaston]

if you had taken the time to read: "CO has gone from 0,78 to 0,018 is divided by approximately 4 between before and after"

Figure given several posts later and not on the same car (with a fault).

The "Focus of 1999 gasoline" went from how much to 0.00%

After if it does not interest you, on your way!

It is precisely because I care that I mind when giving figures without point of comparison.

But if you can not stand the questioning, I let you spread your certainties.

[Janic]

if you had taken the time to read: "CO has gone from 0,78 to 0,018 is divided by approximately 4 between before and after"

Figure given several posts later and not on the same car.

You wanted an example of difference, regardless of the vehicle concerned

The "Focus of 1999 gasoline" went from how much to 0.00%

having no previous CT, comparison is impossible! but if you know a vehicle 17 years old making 0.00% CO technical inspection, does not hesitate to share it!

Janic wrote:
After if it does not interest you, on your way!

It is precisely because I care that I mind when giving figures without point of comparison.

if you were really interested you would roll up your sleeves and check on your own vehicle.

But if you can not stand the questioning, I let you spread your certainties.

what differentiates us, for the moment, is that you speak in the void. Essaies first and ENSUITE gives the result of your assembly after a few months of use.

[Gaston]

not having a previous CT, the comparison is impossible!

It was so hard to write

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
not having a previous CT, the comparison is impossible!

It was so hard to write

Is it that hard to understand?
Stop your useless chatter and retrousses your sleeves and put your hands dirty. We'll talk later!
NB: I expect your case to 0.00% CO!

[Did67]

NB: I expect your case to 0.00% CO!

So impressive that I have trouble believing ... 0 to two decimal ???

Even LPG vehicles, as yet the gas mixture naturally in air, are far from that score ...

Now, you believe it, I have nothing to say. I expressed my doubt. Jesus walking on water, but I'm not!

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
NB: I expect your case to 0.00% CO!

So impressive that I have trouble believing ... 0 to two decimal ???
Even LPG vehicles, as yet the gas mixture naturally in air, are far from that score ...
Now, you believe it, I have nothing to say. I expressed my doubt. Jesus walking on water, but I'm not!

Ah, those machines that tell anything! The head of CT did not believe that just ,. However if you look at the figures on the 25 you will realize that there are 3 decimal, which does not mean that there is a perfect zero, but the measure does not reach the hundredth. So on 25 where CO increased from 0,78 0,018 to be divided by approximately 4 between before and after shows, for over 25 years vehicle without particular setting (plug change, filter, oil) falling (and consumption) was still dizzy.
FOR MIRACLES, it will look elsewhere!

[izentrop]

Hello,
I take the bandwagon. "WITH" being mysterious, I went to see on the first page of the subject which leads us directly here eat-less-auto / fuel saver de-generator-de-turbulence-t669.html

No need to go further than the response of André to know that this is a device that reduces the wealth, so logically the power and the unburnt gas with ... As the pantone what!

Not get upset, I like to oversimplify.

[Did67]

No need to go further than the response of André to know that this is a device that reduces the wealth, so logically the power and the unburnt gas with ... As the pantone what!

If this is true, as we (almost) always have way too much horsepower, reducing horsepower while reducing richness is not a problem. If the unburnt decreases, then the yield increases. "Mechanically"...

No, what is needed is to take the cabbage and calculate how this CO reduction represents potential energy when the oxide CO². Either know the flow of gas in the engine the X% CO oxidized (difference between measurement before and after vortex) X energy released by the oxidation of CO. You compare the energy of the fuel consumed and you have an idea of ​​the magnitude of decline in potential consumption ...

That would surprise me that so few% ...

The gains of many "gadgets" are often psychological: the driver pays much more attention to his driving; we then arrive at spectacular gains (that anyone can achieve by adopting a very soft drive).

Should repeat testing on vehicle fleets (repetitions), with drivers not knowing if their vehicle is equipped or not ...

The most effective, without deception, to reduce its consumption is still to have the vehicle as small as possible ... When I see the circulating park, that's where we could win ..