vmax

Guys I have just thought of something.

My wife has just bought some silver & jewelry kit cleaning kit from the shopping channel.

I saw it advertised. How it works is you fill your kitchen sink with salty water. Then you put this tin mesh plate thing in the sink. You then place your jewelwey on the mesh and it starts to clean the cack of it.

I know about electrolysis but I do not understand how this works. But you can watch it work in front of you. This made me think about the broquets. Maybe they work in a similar fashion. I have a bit more faith now.

But I want to make sure. I think what I find a bit off putting is placing something solid in the petrol tank which is not fixed down and difficult to get out if you decide you don't want it in there any more.

Just a point i thought i would share.

Pete Croney

David

With respect...

The Warren Springs data was the only data produced using a reliable detailed method by an independant testing establishment.

The Casella data is a list results showing varying percentage changes, with NO INFORMATION WHATESOEVER as to how the testing was carried, when, where, repeatable or otherwise. So I dismissed it.

I also dismissed the test on the diesel Scania truck, carried out in Denmark. The baseline test was done in January, the Broquet test was done in April. Without any information to the contrary, I assumed that the vehicle's diesel fuel would be far more combustable in April, than in the depths of a Danish winter.

I also dismissed the letters of recomendation from canal boat owners.

I completely dismissed the reams of paperwork generated by Mr Smith as he has used a totally flawed testing procedure. I cannot accept his assumption that using a rolling road will generate as accurate a set of data as a bench dyno.

My last car produced between 235 and 257bhp on the same rollers, on days of different temp, humidity and barometric pressure. The only other differences were that my car was clean on the first test and more miles on it on the second test.

Mr Smith would test a car, drive it for 500 miles, re-adjust its timing and fuelling and retest it. Why would he need to re-adjust anything in 500 miles?

If I were to conduct this test???

I would mount an engine with a fixed fuel and timing map onto a bench dyno. I would feed it from a fuel tank with sufficient supply to run it for say 5 hours. The tank would have two outlets. Between the engine and the tank, the fuel lines would split, one pipe going to a set of inline Broquets, the other via a valve that would replicate any restriction on flow generated by the Broquets. A valve would direct the supply of fuel via the Broquets, or via the pipe which left it untreated.

The fuel would then not need to be left "to be catalysed" as this would happen inline.

The engine would be run up to temperature and then run constantly for 4 hours. After 2 hours the fuel supply would be switched over. Two tests would be needed, one starting with treated fuel followed by untreated and one starting with untreated followed by treated.

During the running periods samples of emissions, power and EGT would be made at set intervals, say every 15 minutes. From this data it would be possible to eliminate outside influence, other than whether or not the fuel had been positively affected. Carbon weighting the emissions would determine any changes in economy.

A further test would be made using the same fuel supply set up, taking fuel off and determining its Octane rating. The accepted method of achieving this is in a variable compression engine. Although Mr Smith starts discussing Octane ratings, the chemical composition of petroleum, the various chemical formula of additives, their effect on the free radicles of petroleum and their effect on predetonation he makes no attempt whatsover to analyse how fuel that has been in contact with a Broquet has been modified. If indeed it has.

I'm sure Mr Smith is enjoying a wonderful retirement, assuming he has not been abducted by aliens.

KF

SDB,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Here are some facts...

1) There is ZERO evidence or anything else in this thread that disproves broquet.

2) There IS evidence that proves it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1)Erm. The burden of proof lies with the proposer.
2)Sorry. Must have missed it. Gonna read the thread again. Evidence != proof, BTW.

To prove it doesn't work I would have to go around all the engines in the world, and prove that none show any improvement. All you have to do is show me ONE that does (a dyno would suffice).

I await Richards post with interest. And further: If you hold the offer open to then, and there is a difference I will shut up and spend £100 I don't have, to prove that I am not a naysaying bigot.
Fair?

Adam M: Given some of the driving I see, I am not sure that they are not living amongst us.

KF.

[This message has been edited by KF (edited 20 April 2001).]

Pete Croney

There have been a lot of posts put up whilst I was typing the above.

Simon, my post does say that fitting one gave an improvement, but it also says that removing it gave a bigger improvement.

I would be willing to witness a test of this product, but it would need to involve a sound test procedure and be carried out in laboratory conditions by an independant research facility. I would like to be convinced.

As you know work in Basildon and my company are based a couple of miles away from Ford's massive Dunton research facilty. All day long we see Ford test vehicles driving around the roads of Basildon. They are easy to spot as they all have roll cages fitted and many have "disguise" body panels fitted. These cars are full to bursting with computer equipment, probably testing everything down to the minutest detail.

How many cars have Ford fitted a fuel catalyst to as, original equipment?

Gary Foster

Pete + KF

Excellent last posts, sound Engineering practices being applied, music to my ears.

Gary

fast_wrx

Well I'm getting broquet in the hope that it will reduce the damage that NUL may do. Don't get me wrong, I ALWAYS fuel with SUL but in case I'm out in the styx and cannot get SUL, I want a backup plan! ((mine is a jap spec)

robski

Pete Croney,

an excellent test approach, and using a scoob engine rather than a canal boat, I like that approach

so, what sort of cost would be involved for you to set this up?

robski

RaymondH

A couple of years or so ago Practical Classics Magazine (I think that it was) tested some fuel enhancers with an eye on the then impending demise of leaded fuel. Of all the companies making claims that were contacted something like 50% declined to have their products independently tested and as far as I can remember one of them was Broquet. Is that correct David and, if so, why not? Thanks.

Raymond.

PS: Sorry to be a bit vague on details but it was some time ago and the actual magazines are in the attic somewhere.........

helpfromanevo6

This post has been edited by the webmaster as it was potentially slanderous / libellous.

It *did* however contain some statements which *seemed* to be backed up by fact which condemned broquet.

We have not placed the final order for these products as yet and will be speaking with broquet and other parties to check this information before placing it.

Thank you to the poster of this message, if you would like to contact me off-line I would be happy to speak to you.

Best regards

webmaster

[This message has been edited by webmaster (edited 23 April 2001).]

bruce

iTrader: (5)

May be I am looking at this the wrong way but the Subaru Impreza engines run on UNLEADED fuel,therefore they have properly hardened valve seats.So the risk of damaging valve seats is minimal anyway.The only reason for using broquets is to stop detting through better fuel/air bonding which damages pistons.

KF

Interesting point Bruce. Raises another question.

If Broquet is marketted as a lead replacement additive (and it is), and you use it in a car that should be run on unleaded only, does it have the same effect as running an unleaded car on leaded / LRP?
That is to say, what is it in Broquet that prevents VSW but does not damage the catalyst?
KF.

Markus

Edited by me (Markus) and no-one else

Why?
Well, I kinda posted in haste, typing before thinking or waiting. Simon's reply sums up things, he's not cancelling the order and I can have my broquet, he was just protecting us, which is a good thing.

Sorry to Simon, and anyone else I may have upset,

I feel like a prize pillock!

[This message has been edited by Markus (edited 23 April 2001).]

SDB

Markus

For goodness sake settle down.

If you want the product, you are more than welcome to it. I have not done this to take the deal away from people, but merely to do my bit to protect everyone.

If investigations proved that there was a problem, I would simply state the evidence or information and offer a full refund to those that wanted it.

Those that still wanted it would be able to continue to buy as normal.

Please see this as a positive thing. We have a lot of orders for this product which we are totally willing to give up in order to protect the scoobynet members. There are not many companies that would do that.

---

As it happens, the investigations so far have shown what evo6 has said to be slightly innapropriate as far as we are concerned, so I am MUCH more relaxed now. I still have more to look at though, so stay tuned.

Best regards

Simon

helpfromanevo6

What is slanderous about publishing excerpts from a magazine article?? Anyway, if any of you want to read what I wrote, have a look at

helpfromanevo6

What is slanderous about publishing excerpts from a magazine article?? Anyway, if any of you want to read what I wrote, have a look at

mutant_matt

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by helpfromanevo6:
<B>Who is this bulletin board run by?? Stalin??[/quote]

Nope - just someone who has everything to loose if he allows the wrong things to be published on the BBS. The last BBS got shut down for exactly the same kind of thing so you must understand that this makes him cautious....besides, we don't want to loose the BBS so (most of us) support his stance.

Matt

lpitt

I think the question here now is:

What happens to those of us who have ordered?

I still want the product but just have an e-mail saying that you will come back with a proposed delivery - any ideas when this might be?

Everything I have read so far from people who have tried it is positive. Since it's not going to damage my car then can't we go ahead.

If it's a success then consider us testees and maybe re-do the Monster deal again later.

Laurence

rjc

For what it's worth, I fitted Broquet to my MY00 5dr Turbo from new over a year ago and I cannot prove that it has made a single difference to my car. I was 100% sure it would do no damage and about 80% confident that it would have a positive effect.

If it has improved fuel consumption then I can't tell. I've averaged about 22mpg over the first 8000 miles. My car runs very well and very smoothly but how much of this is down to Broquet I simply don't know.

The science behind it does raise some questions (such as how it reaches all the fuel in the tank?) and although tests have been done, none are really conclusive enough for me. The placebo effect is common place with car drivers and I would swear that the odd tweak to my Elise was making it go faster, when in reality I'm sure it wasn't.

I recently discussed the subject with some Lotus test engineers and they were highly sceptical and basically laughed at the idea of putting lumps of tin in the fuel tank. I found myself defending my expenditure as have several other posts to this thread, and in retrospect wondered why.

The reality is that I can prove no benefit and it is not something I would consider for my next car, unless a more conclusive and scientific test is done that shows positive effect in a real world environment.

Rob Collingridge

Markus

Pete,
Yup, I'm going to run my Jap Import with 95RON fuel and Broquet. I should state that I'm <B>not</B> going <B>from</B> SUL to NUL + Broquet, I've always (apart from last two months that is) run on NUL, and have done so for about a year, and I've not (yet!) had any problems.

You should be happy about this? why? well, when my engine blows up I'll come to you to source me a new one, so you'll make some money out of it

I'm not going to open up the NUL vs SUL can of worms. I'm running on NUL, when my engine blows up, I'll have learned a very important lesson.

[This message has been edited by Markus (edited 25 April 2001).]

Pete Croney

OK at last something scientific. Well from a scientist any way.

Yesterday I was fortunate to attend a seminar on oils and fuel additives in motorsport, at Fuchs headquarters in Stoke on Trent. Fuchs are a 800,000,000 GBP turnover company and are the owners of Silkolene. Amongst the guests were Ralliart, R.E.D., B.R.T. and many of the top competition preparation companies in the UK.

The main speaker was John Rowland. John is Chief R&D Chemist for Fuchs and one of the leading petrochemical chemists in the UK.

During the day, we discussed how octane enhancers work.

I asked John Rowland if he had heard of Broquet. Indeed he had and he had met Henry Broquet some years ago.

I asked if he had tested the product and if the product worked. He replied that the laws of chemistry would not allow tins pellets to modify the atomic structure of either iso-octanes or heptanes (the constituants of petroleum) in any way, shape or form. Nor will any tin be dissolved into the fuel. He added that using a tin pellet "catalyst" will not reduce emmissions, will not improve mpg, will not reduce detonation and will not reduce valve seat recession.

During the day we were handed various leaflets which discussed commercially available oil and fuel additives. These fell into 4 categorises.

1) Useful
2) Harmless, but totally useless
3) Midly harmful, but totally useless
4) Harmful, but totally useless

In John Rowlands opinion, Tin pellets fall into category 2, along with fuel line magnets.

I would have bowed out of all of this after my posts about the data sent to me for review, but I have been horified to read that owners are considering this product to let them use 95 RON fuel in Jap spec cars.


[This message has been edited by Pete Croney (edited 25 April 2001).]

Kevin Groat

Pete,

What fits into category 3 of your list, anything other than octane booster ? I've been running my STi 3 on NUL for the last 2 years without any problems as my nearest SUL is a 14 hour ferry ride away !

Kevin.

Mike Rainbird

Markus,
I am at least glad to see you are being a realist about this and are talking about "when" your engine dies and not "if"....

The det you are talking about you are unlikely to hear without the aid of set of "cans" (as it is only the worse case of det that is audible above the engine noise to the ear - the sort that will kill your engine instantly). The sort that is more normal will be a gradual process and it will be "nibbling" away at the head, giving the same effect as pooring a corrosive on the metal. Only after many miles will this knid of det damage show up and the engine will become sick over a period of time.

You saying that your engine is okay now, does not mean that the damage is not being / been done, you won't know until it is too late. However, when it comes to having to take the head off, you will esily see the damage det has caused (and invariably it will be on No.3, the hottest of the pistons), but by then it is too late.

Seems to me you are willing to take an expensive gamble for the sake of a few pence per litre.... You may get away with it if you don't rev / drive the car hard, but then again, you may be in the market for a new engine in a few months when the problem finally materialises and then it may cause a catastophic failure such has been talked about when running NUL on jap imports on track days....

Take care and glad to see you're still enjoying the car.
Best regards
Mike R


[This message has been edited by Mike Rainbird (edited 25 April 2001).]

carl

Markus has stated his car is a 220PS Wagon. Is there a difference between a 220PS WRX and a 208bhp UK car of the same year, such that one can be run on NUL and the other requires SUL? Is it just a mapping issue?

bruce

iTrader: (5)

I'm sure I read on the SIDC FAQ that early WRX's shared many components with the UK cars, and could be run on NUL my 94WRX is happy with NUL although I do put in SUL as the engine responds better with it.

JAMES.M.

Sorry, I havn't read the whole thread but i get the jist.
Just for your information i have been running Broqet for the last 7 or 8 months.
The only thing i noticed after fitting was that the car 'seemed' to be smoother running and it had less roar to the exhaust note.

Since then i have had Unichip fitted so cannot give any long term info as the car is faster now anyway.

My car is still running fine and has not shown any signs of engine damage, but i do not have a knock link fitted so as has been mentioned i would not be able to tell if anything bad is going on.

When i fitted the two Broquets i suspended them with fishing wire, so that if i wasn't happy i could remove them. They are still there(weather the wire is another matter!)

I don't do a lot of miles in the subaru as i have got more economicle cars(and bikes) to use, but when it is used it is driven pretty hard.
I also ALWAYS use s-unleaded, and most of the time with millers octain booster.

Hope this helps some of you decide.

Cheers....JAMES

BTW. I'm running an STI2.

David Lock

This may come as a surprise but I don't totally disgree with Mike above. Of course any engine will be more stressed on a track day and our advice is to use SUL and/or an additive if participating in a track event as, apart from anything else, we feel that using a higher octane fuel can only maximise performance. Having said that we do have a customer (Richard Lane, Fast Lane Motor Corporation, Brighton) who over many years has covered a lot of miles racing around the 'Ring on NUL in tuned race engines supposed to use 4-Star or better. Richard is quite relaxed about this and sometimes uses SUL as well as NUL. Engine strip downs have shown no problems. Most of our "race" customers - including off-shore power boats -use Broquet for more power (better top end revs in boats) and use the best fuel they can get hold of. The Singapore WRX in a post I mentioned has to run on local 90 RON and finds Broquet stops most if not all the appalling det he got on 90. DL.

Markus

Simon,

Think it's time to close this thread. The pros and cons have been discussed, and from what I can see it's only ever going to get into a squabble as to does it work/doesn't it work.

no doubt if it's closed it'll appear again soonish

KF

Triggaaar: "Petrochemical chemists are not exactly independant".
Could you elaborate, please?

David: I am sorry that you feel this has become a personal squabble. I hope you don't think I was being personal, that was certainly not my intention. I have no bias and am trying to balance my scientific scepticism against the anacdotal evidence you supply. There is an analog here, as I posted earlier. I don't believe in things unless they are proved to exist.

Markus: Are we not waiting for some individuals to post their findings on here? This debate is still open. Questions remain unanswered.
KF.

David Lock

KF, No problems. "was in danger of becoming" which is quite different. It hasn't, isn't and won't become personal because I don't work like that (appalling English, sorry).

On proof do you know of an old French proverb? "A thing is no longer impossible once it has happened" David.

Markus

Mike,
Thanks for the concerns.

Can understand that one cannot easilly detect det, and I would look well silly driving around with a set of cans on all day, but one could get a knock link I suppose.

Anyway, I've had a few other import owners contact me and say they've run on NUL for 2yrs+ without any problems.

Goes without saying that for a trackday, I will use SUL, I'm daft, but not that daft