Fuel saving devices - do they do ANYTHING?

We have insect repellers which I've been told by users, work very well.
They're like tiny jet engines (with no moving parts) mouted one on each side
of the front bumper.

 

Turbulence is perhaps the wrong word, there's any amount of turbulance after
the butterfly or plate damper. But flow patterns to induce better mixing can
help. Sarich here in Australia started with an orbital engine which was no
good, but after he hired good help they produced a better
carburetion/injector system which Honda now use. After Ralph Sarich was
promoted sideways out of the workshop (with due regard for his founding
confidence trick with the engine), he's since found that real estate
actually works better still... for him.

 

I actually agree that they can't figure out where it's coming from.
The point is that the sound either freezes or spooks them while the car
is
still quite a ways from them.
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

Kmart sell a catalytic type unit which the fuel goes through .They claim it
makes no difference with 98 octane but does work with 91 octane making it
more powerful ,and thus economy better .I think it might be tooth fairy
stuff but what do you think ?

 

Perhaps if a small amount of whatever raises the octane in those
additives-in-a-bottle, dissolves through the canister... but while mine can
use basically any of the octanes, I can't measure any difference in
performance or economy whatever I use.

 

THEY DON'T WORK! They can't work! They create frequencies which cannot
be detected more than about 10-20 feet from the car, and they are at
frequencies beyond the hearing of the deer. We call them elephant
whistles because no one in North America using them has ever hit an
elephant on the road.

My research on them was prompted by a personal event. They were
mounted on my motorcycle and we were on a ride in the Sierra Nevades
north of Truckee. I rounded an uphill bend and spotted an 8pt buck to
my left is a wide area of the shoulder wh8ch led to a hill. To my
right was a narrow shoulder and a substantial drop-off of great angle.
Just as we got near him he bolted... RIGHT INTO OUT PATH! He could
have gone away from us and up the hillside, but ran all the way across
the pavement to go down the hillside. I hit the brakes as hard as I
could and the thing passed in front of us- about five feet away. He
jumped in the air when he was directly in front of us and I could see
his belly.

I got home and removed the whsitles and ordered something to warn off
a far more dangerous and unpredictable hazard. I mounted Piaa-style
fog lights to help cellphone-using car drivers see me!


__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"

 

Here's a few snippets from another source:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fwt/back_issues/september96/vehiclev.html

DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1996

Vehicle vs. venison

Though the car always wins, it's a conflict best avoided in the first
place.

Tips for avoiding deer

6. Deer warning gadgets don't work. McAninch says several studies have
shown that whistles and other devices attached to vehicles fail to
scare or warn deer: "People want to drive 60 miles per hour with some
device to scare deer off roadways so they don't have to slow down.
It's wishful thinking."


__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"

 

When I was in the Air Force one of the guys had a car that had the fuel
line coiled round the exhaust manifold. He used to run it on kerosine.

It wasn't Volvo, more like a Ford(son).

 

One that MIGHT just work is a drawing pin in your right shoe...

 

So you're saying that you rounded a blind corner that presumably
also blocked sound, with whistles mounted less than the 3' apart
that is usually recommended, and they didn't work on one particular
deer? Ok. I'd also like to note that there are at least three different
types of whistle; the ones that I'm sure work are the ones with large,
rectangular scoops, and the ones with *large* trumpet-like scoops.
The tiny ones that look like little, well, whistles, are probably
worthless. I have a set on my motorcycle, but have no idea if they
work when mounted only about 18" apart.
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

It would be nice to see studies that mention specific brands and
types, how they were mounted, and how exactly they were tested.
Wildlife managers tend to frown on anything that doesn't kill deer.
They just don't see the point. ;-)
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

I'd say that's a bad idea. My V70 (1998 T5) has a returnless fuel rail
to try to keep the fuel in the tank cooler. Some cars run the return
fuel through a heat exchanger in the cold (low pressure) A/C line to
prevent the fuel in the fuel tank from getting too warm. Cold fuel has
2 major benefits, it is less likely to boil (cavitate) at low pressure,
and it evaporates more slowly. Cavitation can stop you dead in your
tracks, and evaporating fuel is both pollution and wasted gas.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

 

It was a rising corner and quite wide open. This was not the first
time that a deer crssed my path with the whistles on.

Regardless of what the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest one way or
the other, please explain or supply evidence as to how a sound that is
beyond the hearing range of the deer could have any effect on their
behavior.

There was a road test done with roadside microphones which showed that
the whistles effective range at speed was about 6-8 feet as I
remember. No very effective by any means- real or imagined.


__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"

 

it could be all "in the head" of the driver...positive
thinking..you know....having an effect on the statistcal
outcome on if you were going to "chase a deer away"
with sound & frequencies.........

 

Can I have a cite, please? Preferably one that mentions the actual
model(s) tested.
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

I'm talking about two things, neither of which is
subjective: how many deer (and other animals) ran into
the road in front of me, and how far ahead, with and without
the warning whistles. If I were saying the difference was
one or two deer or a few feet, that could be subjective.
Dozens of animals over the years, along with distances on
the order of 25 feet, aren't.
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

I culdn't find the study to which i refered, but try these:
http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2002/021118/02111812.htm
http://www.ibmwr.org/otech/deerw.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4277954
http://www.ccefm.com/youth-development.html
Google for : test of deer whistles


__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"

 

This one assumes that all cars produce the same level of road
noise, regardless of conditions. It also assumes that deer can't
effectively discern a 3db difference in noise.

This one relies on two things: police car studies, which are
inherently problematic, as police cars tend to be driven more
like race cars, and uncertainty. It also notes one obviously
bogus study.

"Morning Edition, January 11, 2005 · NPR's Chris Arnold reports
on little gadgets called deer whistles. They attach to
the front of a car and make a high-pitched sound that is inaudible to
humans, but supposedly frightens deer and otheranimals off the road.
Some users love them -- they insist the devices prevent collisions.
Despite their unwaveringloyalty, some researchers are skeptical that
the whistles actually do anything."

"Some researchers are skeptical" about just about anything.

This is another case of noting no definitive evidence that they
work. I heartily agree that driving skill is more important than a
bumper-mounted whistle, however.

In some cases, anecdotal evidence can be more reliable than field
tests, especially when the field tests consist of things like counting
deer/police car accidents, and blowing through the whistles. I'm not
the only one who has observed that these devices can work; "The Deer
of North America" by Leonard Lee Iii Rue, is regarded as a definitive
work on deer. The author, who has been hunting and studying deer for
decades, firmly believes that they work, because he has been using
them and observing the results. So have I. Your results may vary, and
I would definitely avoid the smaller whistles in any case.

You can have the last word.


--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

Popular Mechanics tested some (naming names!) a couple of months ago
and except for the one that caused the engine fire, none did anything.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html

Chip C
Toronto

 

Thanks for the link Allen. Lots of great quotes:

(re: Intake Twister and TornadoFuelSaver): "THE DYNO SAYS: Both
devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake
Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the
TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change."

(re: Capacitor blocks): "But when one on the right bank liquefied and
dripped onto the manifold, we had flames a good 2 ft. tall, requiring
the use of a 20-pound fire extinguisher. This, of course, terminated
the test."

I had never heard of these, but it just goes to prove as truth what
George Carlin said: "Put two things together that haven't been put
together and some schmuck will buy it."

__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"