EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   EcoModding Central (https://ecomodder.com/forum/ecomodding-central.html)
-   -   For the 96% efficient types..... (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/96-efficient-types-7206.html)

suspectnumber961 02-22-2009 06:34 AM

For the 96% efficient types.....
 
WE WON OUR RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS IN A LEGAL CONTEST WITH THE FTC IN A BATTLE OF THE EXPERTS?

This has been a really rocky road. It is so amazing that President Obama has
ordered all the American car makers to get another 10 miles per gallon out of
their cars, and we typically increase the mileage just with the HAFC kit by at
least that with just about anything we do when it is done right. In other
words, right now there is only ONE entity in this country that can take just
about any make and model of car and exceed the Presidents orders RIGHT NOW!

That is incredible, because in January the FTC tried to shut our main company
the supplier of the HAFC kits down. In a one of a kind expert report, the FTC
has an expert physicist that claimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone (not just
us) to get more than a 4% improvement in the fuel economy of any American made
car! Because of that purported FACT, it made all our representations of getting
over 50% improvement the majority of the time impossible! This expert claimed
that about 96% of the gasoline in a vehicles is burned (leaving only 4% to
leave the tailpipe.) While this is not untrue, that does not mean that the
burned fuel is making any power on the wheels, instead most of it is being
burning in the catalytic converter UNDER the vehicle for NO mechanical benefit
to the owner of the car. This report, while technically true, was irrelevant to
the nature of the internal combustion engine process and the overall fuel
economy of a vehicle. The FTC's expert report became the justification to put
us out of business. Imagine the President of the United States and all his
expert advisors ordering the car makers to do what this FTC expert claims is
impossible. Imagine the FTC of this administration trying to shut down the
company that can give the President what he wants.

The FTC came in and on the strength of this expert got a judge, exparte (means
they ONLY heard ONE side of the story), to order that all of Dutchman
Enterprises' bank accounts be frozen and the company?s assets be confiscated
and the company be restricted from making any claims or doing any business.
They froze the accounts with hundreds of thousands of dollars in them on
Thursday, would not even allow the paychecks for the employees to be paid on
Friday. All the employees went home and the business was shut down based upon
no complaints at all to the FTC? ONLY this report from the expert that stated
that what we were claiming (and what the President was ordering to happen by
2011) was impossible. It was a disaster for us!

We tried to get the judge to at least give us access to a portion of our funds
to be able to hire a lawyer, but the FTC refused to grant us even that one
small right to counsel. So, the leader of our project tried to mount a defense
without any legal counsel. They even froze his personal accounts and the
company had nothing to operate on or use to defend itself. Our guys went to
court and the judge soon realized the injustice of it all and allowed us to
have money for our defense. We also asked if we could use some of our own money
to hire our own expert physicist to rebut their Doctor of physics. The judge
allowed us to spend $5,000 for that purpose. That turned out to be enough,
because a Harvard engineer that had been following this project volunteered to
help out for free, and it turned out, his father has a double doctorate in
materials and in physical engineering with a master?s degree in internal
combustion engine design, and is world renown with almost 100 scientific
abstracts published and books translated into most languages of the world. The
father was overseas and volunteered to come to the USA to give his opinion if
we would just pay his expenses. We also got the ex Vice President of the
Society of Automotive Engineers who designs internal combustion engines for GM,
Volvo and Saab give us a report on his opinion as well. The cost for both of
these experts came to $5,000.

So, on February 5th, after a month of no activity and frozen accounts that
almost destroyed our business, we finally were ready to be heard in opposition
to the FTC's heavy handed and totally unjustified attack on us. We had a
hearing before judge Shipp in Federal District Court. In the morning they put
on their expert who stood by his report. The judge was originally shocked to
discover that the FTC had not ever gotten even on complaint to justify this
action. Our lawyer cross examined their expert and actually got him to agree
with every single point our experts were going to prove that day. He showed him
a report from the department of Energy showing that it was possible for the fuel
efficiency of cars to be increased by 50% by just injecting hydrogen into the
combustion chamber to help the gasoline burn better. Our lawyer asked the
expert if he thought the DOE was also lying about that fact. Our lawyer pointed
out government web sites that state that vehicles are only 15%-20% efficient
while this expert was saying that vehicles are 96% efficient. Our lawyer showed
their expert facts and reports from car makers, NASA, MIT, and even the
encyclopedia to prove the folly of his assumptions. It was not a very good day
for their physicist. He was caught in defending physical principles that are,
on their face, true, but not relevant.

Then our experts explained to the judge why the report of their expert was not
relevant to the issue of fuel economy, and it became clear to the judge that
their cryogenics expert (even by his own admissions) was a poor selection on
the part of the FTC for an expert to give an opinion on internal combustion
engines. The long and short of it is that we PROVED in that courtroom on the
5th of February that our HAFC technology could actually increase the efficiency
of vehicles (in the unanimous opinions of all our experts) by at least as much
as 200% without violating even one of the laws of physics. The judge was
convinced, and ruled that our bank accounts be unfrozen and that we not be
restrained from doing any activity that we are currently doing and that we do
not, in his opinion, pose a danger to consumers.

If you want to read the whole story, here is a link to PESN.com -

Dennis Lee and Dutchman Defeat FTC

bikin' Ed 02-23-2009 08:41 AM

.....And now these words from our sponsor. How much is an ad on this site?

dremd 02-23-2009 09:01 AM

Wow; I saw this when it was just posted and assumed it could be deleted at any second. . . ..

Did they the FTC really loose the suit against these scammers?

MetroMPG 02-23-2009 09:16 AM

Sigh. Away for the weekend, and you never know what's going to pop up...

Quote:

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 (Post 88987)
Our lawyer pointed
out government web sites that state that vehicles are only 15%-20% efficient
while this expert was saying that vehicles are 96% efficient.

The fact you don't realize these are fundamentally different issues strains your credibility, to say the least.

ConnClark 02-23-2009 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dremd (Post 89117)
Did they the FTC really loose the suit against these scammers?

No it has not gone to trial yet, it seems that the y have been able to remove a temporary injunction the FTC issued halting advertising and freezing the company's assets.

Note: Notice they haven't claimed complete victory or a made a definitive statement they have won flat out. Claims that they have won flat out would be deceptive practices and bring further charges by the FTC.

ConnClark 02-24-2009 01:53 AM

After a little further study of this case I figured out what happened. This wasn't a trial regarding the injunction like I thought. It was a trial on the charges leveled by the FTC. Dennis Lee chose to assert his right to a speedy trial (some thing that is unheard of in FTC cases) and caught them with their pants down. There is no doubt that the FTC is looking for an avenue for appeal.

Fortunately for the FTC the scammers reverted back to their old ways and started selling this crap again in the exact same way. This means that if the FTC looses its appeal and can't press charges for previous violations due to double jeopardy, they can press new charges based on the new violations since the trial. Sort of like if some one beats a murder rap and then goes out and kills again.

suspectnumber961 02-24-2009 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConnClark (Post 89300)
After a little further study of this case I figured out what happened. This wasn't a trial regarding the injunction like I thought. It was a trial on the charges leveled by the FTC. Dennis Lee chose to assert his right to a speedy trial (some thing that is unheard of in FTC cases) and caught them with their pants down. There is no doubt that the FTC is looking for an avenue for appeal.

Fortunately for the FTC the scammers reverted back to their old ways and started selling this crap again in the exact same way. This means that if the FTC looses its appeal and can't press charges for previous violations due to double jeopardy, they can press new charges based on the new violations since the trial. Sort of like if some one beats a murder rap and then goes out and kills again.


I personally can't say one way or the other as far as the HAFC system...but your assumption of "scammer" might be off the mark though?

mpg Research • View topic - HAFC & FORD

"As for getting the Dutchman system to work, here are a few numbers for you. Out of every 100 kits Dutchman sells (and kit number 10,000 was shipped just last week), about 20% of them get the mileage results. You may exclaim that 20% totally sucks, and you'd be right. But let me toss another number at you. Of the kits that have been installed by trained installers, over 70% are getting at least the requisite 50% increase in mileage. Dutchman has realized that without the proper training, it is almost impossible to get the results from the kit, or anybody else's product for that matter. Entirely too many of the kits are being installed by the customers themselves, or their untrained mechanics. We are moving rapidly to change that scenario to involving trained mechanics in the installation more and more."

Once they get some more bugs worked out and when I have a decent car...I might go with one...but I'd install it and let someone else tune it. I would try to find out which vehicles they have the most success with and buy one of them....and start out right with it.

*note....not an advert...just interested in the subject...your results may vary

Frank Lee 02-24-2009 05:52 AM

I think I can predict what my results would be :rolleyes:

hummingbird 02-24-2009 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 (Post 89305)
...Of the kits that have been installed by trained installers, over 70% are getting at least the requisite 50% increase in mileage.

Fellow chose quite an ironic user id! These are indeed suspect numbers!!

Frankly, If the system really works, why is it being retailed as kits - when 4 out of 5 buyers won't be able to figure out how to correctly use it? Any other business would have to be boarded up if its products worked only 20% of the time. Why is this guy special?

I for myself would be glad to pay a nice premium if a car is factory fitted with such an amazing device, and gives me 50% higher FE. Why is there a total lack of enthusiasm from the auto manufacturers, even from those that are on death-bed these days?

Maybe our friend has been able to fool one judge - like the 10k gullible customers he has been able to snag. But the rest of the world knows better, and one day would also figure out how to legally and royally put an end to such things.

wilky 02-24-2009 10:05 AM

Not this crap again!

**facepalm**

tasdrouille 02-24-2009 10:36 AM

Suspect,

They are scammers. They sell magnets with their kits...

The sooner they get nailed, cause they will, the better.

suspectnumber961 02-25-2009 06:13 AM

My bottom line?
 
Even if they could only manage a 50% mpg gain with ONE VEHICLE and this could be verified...and it could be done without reducing the reliability and driveability....THEN this would prove the point.

So what happens when fuel management systems are designed from scratch to work with these kinds of add on systems?

US auto companies are on life support because they built more Hummers than fuel efficient cars. You can't use idiots as examples of anything.

As a "suspect"...I suspect people are going to be surprised how fast things change now that some fairly rational adults (not the military, "defense" and oil companies?) are in charge politically in the US.

All I can say is...stay tuned....more to come.

dremd 02-25-2009 10:33 AM

Also please do tell us about the 96% in the thread title.

Andyman 02-25-2009 11:43 AM

It looks like the 96% refers to the estimated fraction of the gasoline that is burned in the engine and exhaust system. I doubt that most of it burns in the catalytic converter but I agree that speeding up combustion so a higher percentage of the fuel burns in the engine will help improve engine efficiency. That is what hydrogen added to the fuel mixture is intended to do. I can't say how effective it is. I have seen an engine running without an exhaust manifold and it was blowing out flames from the exhaust ports. That shows that some of the fuel burns after it leaves the engine.

The whole title seems to imply that the post was intended for people who believe that an engine or a vehicle is 96% efficient. Most car engines have less than 30% efficiency even at their most efficient speed and load. Only a fraction of the heat generated from the fuel is turned into mechanical work. The rest is released, mainly from the radiator and the exhaust pipe.

jamesqf 02-25-2009 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andyman (Post 89601)
I have seen an engine running without an exhaust manifold and it was blowing out flames from the exhaust ports.

Ever seen a rocket launch?

MetroMPG 02-25-2009 04:55 PM

This reminder, from a credible source:

Quote:

In fact, any modern engine in good condition and at normal operating temperature emits only about 1 - 2% of the input fuel as unburnt hydrocarbons, even before passing through the catalyst. I have studied test data for literally hundreds of engines over the past 10 years and this is absolutely consistant for all engine types. Only engines that are very old (say more than 50 years) or in serious need of maintenance/adjustment would waste anything like 15 - 20% of their fuel
Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view

(I post this in response to the comment earlier in this thread that a significant amount of fuel is burned in the cat.)

shovel 02-25-2009 06:20 PM

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about the validity of the claims from this system, but I think it's valuable to point out that automobile manufacturers won't be putting into cars, systems which require another fluid/fuel/substance to be added.

Typical motorists already seem to have a hard time performing standard fluid changes on the stuff that's been in cars since day one, I'd wager that the average non-gearhead driver doubles the recommended service interval for oil changes, if not worse. And forget about ever flushing brake or power steering fluid... ever. Diff or manual trans oil? Never!

They wouldn't pour distilled water into a hydrogen generator.... they'd dump tap water in or dump in nothing at all.

Frank Lee 02-25-2009 06:39 PM

I mostly agree with you shovel but there are diesel emission systems that require urea refills.

ConnClark 02-26-2009 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961 (Post 89532)
Even if they could only manage a 50% mpg gain with ONE VEHICLE and this could be verified..

If they could do that then they wouldn't be subject to a criminal investigation.

Edit: If they could only manage a 5% improvement they wouldn't be under a criminal investigation either.

markweatherill 02-26-2009 05:55 AM

It's possible for an engine to be 96% efficient at using up its fuel, but only about 30% efficient at turning that fuel into useful work. The two figures are not the same thing, which is a huge mental hurdle to some! And the latter figure is never going to approach the former. That is, some of the work done in producing the engine's output will always go towards cooling, overcoming friction, that kind of thing.

ConnClark 02-26-2009 07:12 PM

Okay, I guess I was right the first time after all. This was a case about a preliminary injunction.

Actual ruling is here.
http://www.commutefaster.com/FTC-Dut...ippScan001.pdf

In short the scammers are still able to sell the HHO crap and have access to their money until the actual trial is over.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com