NUVIMAX Electromagnastatic Fuel/Air Mixing System [MERGED]

[uls]

gusto niya lahat ng "invention" treated equally

kung walang kwenta ang isang invention kahit anong promote mo it's gonna vanish from the market eventually

[oj88]

It's funny that this guy is selling his own fuel saving gadget.

LINK: http://tsikot.com/forums/engine-fuel...79/index8.html

I decided to humor myself and went to their blog site (IONIC COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY). So there I was, skimming through the BS when I thought I saw something interesting. Going back a few sentences and sure enough, the following claim floored me:

A new engine design that will make engines smaller, cheaper and simpler, could be realized. Since the ICT [Ionic Combustion Technology] is analogous to the common rail/turbocharger tandem, (EFI/turbocharger for petrol engines), dispensing these century-old contraptions will greatly reduce engine size. Inside a pleasure boat, for example, the space formerly occupied by the CR/Turbocharger can be put to better use. Modern engines were made monstrous, complicated and expensive by CR/Turbo. This can be observed during the yearly exhibitions in Europe and Asia. If the ICT is retrofitted on conventional engines, it will make them smaller, lighter and cheaper with nearly the same performance of modern engines.

Anybody up for replacing their common rail fuel injection systems with a magnet and some grade school science project? :D

[Boy Bastos]

NUVImax at NUVItron? Sure ako na ang name ng racketeer nito is NUVIrto.

[falken]

Simple lang pananaw ko dito, if your product really works, do you honestly think that big car companies wouldn't be clamoring for whatever technology you've got there?

If on the off chance that you have found something that car manufacturers who spend billions of dollars on R&D didn't, don't you think that you shouldn't be having such a hard time selling your product? Sila pa magbabayad sayo para bilhin idea mo.

I would never buy anything for my car that isn't scientifically proven with cold, hard quantitative results.

Yeah, if it really works, they'll pay you millions to take it off your hands.

[ghosthunter]

* light2light

Taken from above mentioned blog site:

A new engine design that will make engines smaller, cheaper and simpler, could be realized. Since the ICT [Ionic Combustion Technology] is analogous to the common rail/turbocharger tandem, (EFI/turbocharger for petrol engines), dispensing these century-old contraptions will greatly reduce engine size. Inside a pleasure boat, for example, the space formerly occupied by the CR/Turbocharger can be put to better use. Modern engines were made monstrous, complicated and expensive by CR/Turbo. This can be observed during the yearly exhibitions in Europe and Asia. If the ICT is retrofitted on conventional engines, it will make them smaller, lighter and cheaper with nearly the same performance of modern engines.

That quoted text makes people think that that Ionic Combustion Technology is equal or better than a turbocharger ...

Given a turbocharged 1.6L gasoline engine makes around 150hp while it's non-turbocharged counterpart only does 110hp. Can you install the ICT to the 1.6L engine and produce 150hp?

Yes or No?

[fourtheboys96]

bros. (1.) the common rail, turbo charger,efi,direct injection, etc were invented as fuel savers/engine enhancers, how come nobody could debunk them as such? It's because these are now incorporated in the engine. Nobody in his right mind
will debunk these for obvious reasons. Common rail and the turbocharger are now over a hundred years old, perfected in the late 90s by Fiat, who sold it to Bosch, who sold it to...

(2) pls see: water/alcohol injection for turbo diesel use. This idea was used in WW II to combat detonation. Now it is used in diesel engines to increase engine power. And to think that EPA had debunked this idea in the '80s. If engine designers/inventors closed their minds 50 years ago, we would be stucked-up with the carburetor. Imagine a world without Dmax., CRDI, etc. ALL modern diesel engines use common rail and turbocharging.

the title of the EPA link you sent is....... Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program

the common rail, turbo charger,efi,direct injection that you keep on mentioning are rarely "after market" devices except for some enthusiasts.

[uls]

ang point kasi ni TS fuel saving inventions din daw ang common rail direct fuel injection and turbochargers

so what make his magnet different?

haha

[shelu]

if only they will accept the challenge for a dyno and found it to be true, they have a captured market here. it doesn't make sense why they won't subject the product for a dyno. except of course, if it is a scam.

[dvldoc]

Still waiting for that full sized dyno you guys supposedly had at speedlab that you have on your blogspot. But we already know the answer to this, it's not going to appear.

[light2light]

Gentlemen, bros,: i do not like to debate with you. you are entitled to your opinion. At present, we are not keen on advertising/selling our innovation. It's because we had seen how the application of two simple devices, properly combined, could result in an innovation that couldn't be fathomed even by experts in the automotive field unless personally driven. We dont want the technology to lie idly on our shelves.

Being advocates of climate change, we want to give the technology to the govt (without prejudice to our patents). However, DOE didn't include this idea on their fuel tests in UP campus that included E-jeeps and LPG conversion (which costs P150K to P300k). IMO, our devices (less than10K if mass produced)) couldn't compete with the two options in terms of commissions, would it? We are giving it free to the govt provided it is used solely for govt concerns. True, when the devices are used individually, the results are so-so, when combined, it becomes so effective that a 98KIA 1.3L will run at 20-25k/ltr or more and increased engine power by 15hp * 4000rpm to a '91 Mits Galant. And to think that a DOE representative was present when we had the device tested in 2008. Since these tests was not cheap,(P80K), we are still musing if we will have the device/s tested by UP-VRTL (another P80K). Could I posts the 9page ETV on this thread? (Dyno results with fuel economy run). I hope Dvldoc will have the time to verify our dyno at Speedlab; since he said that he is a customer of that Lab in Quezon Av.

[fourtheboys96]

Gentlemen, bros,: i do not like to debate with you. you are entitled to your opinion. At present, we are not keen on advertising/selling our innovation. It's because we had seen how the application of two simple devices, properly combined, could result in an innovation that couldn't be fathomed even by experts in the automotive field unless personally driven. We dont want the technology to lie idly on our shelves.

Being advocates of climate change, we want to give the technology to the govt (without prejudice to our patents). However, DOE didn't include this idea on their fuel tests in UP campus that included E-jeeps and LPG conversion (which costs P150K to P300k). IMO, our devices (less than10K if mass produced)) couldn't compete with the two options in terms of commissions, would it? We are giving it free to the govt provided it is used solely for govt concerns. True, when the devices are used individually, the results are so-so, when combined, it becomes so effective that a 98KIA 1.3L will run at 20-25k/ltr or more and increased engine power by 15hp * 4000rpm to a '91 Mits Galant. And to think that a DOE representative was present when we had the device tested in 2008. Since these tests was not cheap,(P80K), we are still musing if we will have the device/s tested by UP-VRTL (another P80K). Could I posts the 9page ETV on this thread? (Dyno results with fuel economy run). I hope Dvldoc will have the time to verify our dyno at Speedlab; since he said that he is a customer of that Lab in Quezon Av.

I appreciate your willingness to give more information about your innovation.
Give us a webpage instead of posting the 9-page ETV.
A little bit of science helps a lot.
And BTW, please be ready for criticisms as many of the people here very knowledgeable about how stuff works.

Also, increased fuel economy and power is not all what should be divulged. How was this achieved and what are the effects on the engine and emissions etc should be included. If you have applied for a patent, you dont have to worry about IPR violation.

[light2light]

GH, I dunno what would happen if what will be the power increase. Ok, let's make a deal, let's debunk the ICT with data and not with our table assessments. Better still, let's start with computer simulation using our design parameters(from our blog).

We had spent P80K for the ETV in 2008 under the watch of DOST-DOE-ITDI Engineers.

FYI, we invented an LPG Stove fuel saver in March 2012, which was conceived in 2008. If you don't know the principles involved, syempre, many will expertly say that it is a scam! But that's another story, and it doesn't fall under tsikots' concern. Salamat

[light2light]

for the boys96; thank you for your assessment. I do not mind being critisized by well meaning friends. Sana, walang magreply ng malaswa. I am twice/thrice your age and dont want to waste my time answering illogical answers.
Sana, yong mga comments na makakadagdag ng knowledge natin at ng marami pang iba.

[ghosthunter]

Being advocates of climate change, we want to give the technology to the govt (without prejudice to our patents). However, DOE didn't include this idea on their fuel tests in UP campus that included E-jeeps and LPG conversion (which costs P150K to P300k). IMO, our devices (less than10K if mass produced)) couldn't compete with the two options in terms of commissions, would it? ....

Obviously you are exaggerating the cost of Auto-LPG conversion for your own benefit.

Auto-LPG conversion would only cost around P18,000 for carb style engines and around P40,000 for fuel injection engines in typical sedans. Vehicles with bigger engines, conversions will cost a bit more but definitely not the amounts you are quoting.

PLUS the advantage of Auto-LPG is the savings in the cost of fuel (LPG vs gasoline) will pay for the kit's cost in a year or so in typical use.

[uls]

an innovation that couldn't be fathomed even by experts in the automotive field

couldnt be fathomed by experts?

maybe they're not experts

mystical ang dating no? parang alien technology

Being advocates of climate change

is this guy ehnriko? he sounds like ehnriko

[ghosthunter]

Gentlemen, bros,: i do not like to debate with you. you are entitled to your opinion. At present, we are not keen on advertising/selling our innovation. It's because we had seen how the application of two simple devices, properly combined, could result in an innovation that couldn't be fathomed even by experts in the automotive field unless personally driven. We dont want the technology to lie idly on our shelves.

As long as you are giving your opinion, we shall give our opinion including the FACTS to balance the exaggerations, myths and outright lies in your statements and in your blog.

And if we demand you prove certain claims, you should be able to substantiate those claims with facts.

I think it is just fair, don't you think so?

[ghosthunter]

GH, I dunno what would happen if what will be the power increase. Ok, let's make a deal, let's debunk the ICT with data and not with our table assessments. Better still, let's start with computer simulation using our design parameters(from our blog).

Your blog claims the device can do the same job as a turbo charger in a car's engine.

So I am asking, do you have proof that you can make a standard (normally aspirated) 1.6L engine produce the same power as a turbocharged 1.6L engine?

No debates, no arguements, no "deals". Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[fourtheboys96]

As long as you are giving your opinion, we shall give our opinion including the FACTS to balance the exaggerations, myths and outright lies in your statements and in your blog.

And if we demand you prove certain claims, you should be able to substantiate those claims with facts.

I think it is just fair, don't you think so?

*light2light

putting aside your differences with GH, the statements above regarding facts is very important.

the reason many inventions are viewed as "scams" because the claims are not supported by facts or the reasons given why it works does is not supported by scientific evidence.

in this age, a a lot of people are skeptics but also many are very gullible when it comes to buying cost saving products.

the least you can do is to prove your claims with verifiable information.

that is how skeptics become believers (at least some).

[light2light]

For the enlightenment of for the boys96; pls see nuvisys.blogspot.com Our innovation is a duality of invention, which means that both devices should be installed together as they are complementary. The NUVITRON alone can save 5-30%; the NUVIMATE saves about the same, 5-30%. When installed together - 10-60% theoretically. There are many names of our innovation; namely Ionic mixing/combustion technology; polarized mixing/combustion, Electromagnastatic mixing/combustion among others.

Our theoretical explanation of how it works is our own, based on the natural law of repulsion/attraction. The electromagnetic component depends on the theory of repulsion. When molecules are ionized positively, the ions repel, so the molecular clusters are broken down to the molecular level., analogous to the common rail of 'atomizing' fuel particles by extreme pressure (2000bars, 29,000psi., designers are planning on increasing pressure farther). The electrostatic component just applies a negative charge on the air particles. When the 'cations' are mixed with the 'anions' in the mixing chamber, the highest level of mixing is achieved, which will result in a higher level of combustion. Turbocharging can be reduced with a small motor in the air induction system. Of course, someone could present another plausible theory better than ours. Theoretically, it should work and we know that it works because we had pilot-tested it. BTW, I am waiting for the table assessment ofEngr, Tony of UK. (tonys guide to fuel saving devices)

[onemph05]

A good article...
Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers' - Popular Mechanics