The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

[Guest Close leongster]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

$35,000! What, to pop a vehicle up on a dyno, hook up an extra fuel line with the gizmo and then monitor the power output for 15-20 minutes of testing. Give me a break.

You'd have to wonder how many street racers could afford such testing on their $20,000 vehicles.

Have you ever noticed how con-men always have another excuse handy?

Hi - who you calling con-men now? The guys at VIPAC? I am equally appalled by that figure too, fyi. In Singapore the same test would cost us 7-8000SGD, ('bout 6K Aussie) and that's at a university dyno running 1/3 the procedure outlined here!

I think we are all in the wrong business. But until we find greener pastures, let's keep the innuendo to minimum, ya.

[Guest Close leongster]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Guys,

this sounds like a job for Mythbusters.

Why don't you

1) take a car to nice long stretch of quiet road (should be easy in Oz)

2) fill up to neck (no Fitch fitted)

3) drive with cruise control until she stops & check km

4) fill up again to neck & fit Fitch

5) drive back with cruise control same stretch of road and check if you get further.

Sounds like a nice outing for a weekend with the mates, wife, dog or all the CDs you can't listen to at home.

In a Citroen C5 HDI with 2 people cruising at 100 km/h you should get at least 1,200 km on 68 L of fuel.

This is actually a good idea. The C5 has a fuel computer, yes. ( 1200km on 68 litres - whew! Gasoline is so dead.)

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Fitch Fuel Catalyst- Total Rubbish!

I Found an interesting Motorcycle Dyno test of the Fitch Fuel Catalyst.



"Now I’m no chemical engineer, so I can’t comment on whether the theory behind this thing is sound or not. But that “increases power” claim (which is backed up by dyno results on their web site) caught my eye, and I do know how to run a dyno. So let’s cut to the chase and see if I can substantiate at least that claim.

To make the comparison fair, I bought five gallons of hi-test at a local station and put it into 2 gas cans, one with the Fitch device and one without.
To give the device ample opportunity to do it’s magic, I waited a couple days. The mule (my S1) was flushed of all old gasoline and the un-Fitched fuel was put in.
After a thorough warm-up, dyno testing commenced. The bike was tuned up, and once a solid, repeatable result was obtained, all of the gasoline was drained out and the Fitch equipped gasoline poured in, along with the Fitch device. Testing resumed, and after about an hour of pounding on the S1, trying my damndest to find some justification for the $50 I had parted with, I gave up.
Not only were the “best” pulls in each configuration (shown) virtually identical, but more importantly, the range of results between the treated and untreated gasoline was well within the repeatability of the measurement."

I think that for these kinds of improvements, I will keep the $510 in my pocket.

Tilly

[Guest Close David]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

I wasn’t going to comment on this as after reading the replies and comments from the Glitch people on the 4WD forum link posted earlier gave me more than sufficient information to make up my own mind as to the credibility of this product and I can see that flogging a dead horse is probably useless.

Despite that, I would like to offer a suggestion for testing this product that I believe would produce results that could be useful and extremely practical from a cost and setup point of view.

Firstly, and with apologies to those whom may be offended, it is clear that many people do not have the first clue of what a viable test entails. You cannot drive a car on a road and get any meaningful data especially if the test is done once. There are infinite variables in such a test and the basis of a real test is to ELIMINATE as many variables as possible. There are so many things that could be different on a drive of say 50KM let alone 1200Km that unless the test was done 20 times over, any number of factors, not the least the way the car was actually driven, would make any such test nothing more than an exercise in wasting fuel.

My suggestion (as similar to another thread about fuel additives) is to merely get an engine, set it up in a stationary configuration, put a constant load on the thing and measure the fuel consumption. Fuel consumption could be easily measured over a given amount of time (or time run on a set amount of fuel) and several runs with the device connected and disconnected could be measured to help verify the results. I believe an ideal piece of equipment to conduct this test on would be one of those portable Light tower things that have their own generator. These things are available at nearly every decent hire place, come with their own constant load device and it would not be difficult to intercept the fuel line and extend it to allow for fitting of a Glitch Cattle-icer or two way valve.

As long as reasonable preparations were made such as proper warm up times and flushing of each fuel between runs, any margin of testing error would easily be surpassed by the glitch’s supposed 10% increase in economy/power. I think most people would be happy to see a creditable test show any measurable and repeatable improvement, the amount of that improvement would probably be a secondary consideration.

This test would be easy and very cheap to conduct and if some additional measuring devices could be procured such as an exhaust gas analyzer or digital data logger to very accurately measure temperatures and maybe even specific electrical output in the case of a generator, certainly it would not be difficult to establish some reliable data as to the glitch’s performance. I am sure it would not be hard to find someone with a light tower or generator that would “ loan” it for the tests to be conducted nor would it be very difficult to find some interested parties with appropriate measuring equipment that would also donate the use of their equipment to satisfy their own curiosity.

I am sure the Glitch company would have a very worthwhile market for their devices on generators and pumps (and poorly running lawnmowers) and other stationary engine applications to make the availability of one of their devices a very worth while investment in the marketing of their product and would give them some creditable data to show all those who have been calling out for it, but they have so far failed to produce.

Being the reputable business they claim to be, No doubt Glitch would be only too happy to participate in such a simple but effective test and would readily make their product available to prove it’s value rather than offer any lame, transparent excuses that could be seen by some skeptics as them knowing there product is a load of BS.

I believe this test could be done for as little as under $100 if someone would loan their light tower and it would still offer data reliable enough to be accepted as creditable by many who may call the effectiveness of the Glitch Cattle-Icer into question. Being as cheap as this test would be to conduct, Maybe even some of the people here and on the 4WD forum would be interested enough to donate some funds to meet the expenses of the test and the procedure could be conducted at a place where all those interested could come and watch the test being conducted. Perhaps if a university or organisation like the NRMA or choice were made aware of the test, they may like to send one of their representatives to oversee the test and add more credibility to dependability of the results. Perhaps the media may be interested in reporting on the test as well and could let everyone know the results which would be a huge assett to Glitch in marketing their devices.

If anyone here does see any merit in this idea and can arrange a suitable piece of equipment for testing and anyone else could arrange some suitable measuring equipment, a simple cheap test could be done to help the Glitch company and everyone else by proving these devices would allow them to achieve greater power and economy in their vehicles and would be a worthwhile investment.

Would certainly seem a win- win situation to everyone I think.

[Guest Close leongster]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Amidst the controversy that is now surrounding the Fitch (or Glitch - like that!), I'm posting right after this thread, the same entry that I did on the Nissan X-trail forum.

The tests here were for acceleration only, and may not be anything near what you'd get on a rolling road with certified procedures and all that.

Given that no one had a dyno large enough for the 28-tonne vehicle, the concensus was to go for some good old fashioned drag strip style tests. Hee Hee Hee.

I am deeply encouraging of more testing to determine if this thing works as it's claimed to - long term. I am particularly thrilled with the common sense that seems to prevail in this forum. I mean that. I am seeing solutions being presented most of which have a place if allowed to work in tandem.

While on that note I have a small Honda 800watt generator I can bring to the table. It runs gasoline however, but we can hook it up to a 600watt HMI light I have to test it under load.

If you have a trusted biofuel advocate (or simple petrolhead) in Singapore, who is willing to scrutinise this, put them in touch with me please and I'll help in any way I can. If anyone knows of how to attach some kind of timer to this set-up so we don't have to sit around waiting for the fuel to run out, please advise.

SMS (65) 9863 1064

best,


Eddie

[Guest Close leongster]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

(Extract from Nissan X-trail forum on Fuel Catalyst)

>> ("Chansen, I am actually happy to note that you are capable of great diplomacy when called for. So it’s my turn to be civil, from now on.

To those of you who’ve been watching this from the sidelines, thanks for holding back on the slings and arrows. It’s now time to come clean.

My name is ________ and I’m a professional photographer, based in Singapore, I reside here: 1º23’9”N , 103º 52’ 3” E. My mobile is
_________ but if you plan to call sms first as I only take overseas calls from registered clients.

I did not have the benefit of a college education, but I do have a background in the arts, and spent my early years developing campaigns
for names like Daimler-Benz, Philips, American Express, Chrysler and General Motors. If you Google my name, hopefully you’ll catch a glimpse
of my past work in adland. These days my clients are folks in the motoring and hospitality business, where good, old fashioned Honesty
combined with the promise of some fun, still opens up doors.

I used to scratch-build and fly powered, scale model aeroplanes, so Reynold’s nos, laminar airflow and turbulance is old hat
( that’s why I didn’t respond, Chansen). I’m also a certified petrolhead.

The tests on the fire engine actually did take place. Yes, I take credit for conceiving and co-ordinating the project, even though I do
not have any ties with the Fitch guys beyond meeting up with them to get the test done.

Also, it should be said that the prologue to these tests involved people at the very top, so this was not just some half-hitched lunchtime
gag with a station manager to see if this thing would make a truck go like it was on speed.

My plan, in a nutshell, was to see if the Fitch really worked in the real world, beyond my lawnmower, van (sic) and several cars I am
still testing these things on.

With witnesses on hand, and a straightforward protocol, we recorded an improvement in the 0-80kph of around 3 seconds from standing,
unbraked start, against a baseline of around 36 seconds. That’s about 8% improvement on an otherwise unmodified vehicle that weighed
28 metric tonnes, and had a 500 bhp Detroit diesel. The test is detailed in a report.

The photos of the test are below. I’ve posted an abridged file as it’ll load quickly.

Detailed images are available if you’ll PM me. (I’ve also posted my mug. It’s about 3 years old, when I was forty-one. Look ma, no eyeballs.)

These images are copyright, as is the PDF of the test report that I hope to post, once I lift the embargo on that. So please respect
(my company also makes money from IP thieves). I’ll gladly give anyone the facts if I am asked to. For now, however, I am simply submitting
the physical evidence that I have not been on acid this last month.

I intend to open up another thread detailing my personal experience with this product among others, as I have both positive and negative
feedback which I feel is valuable to readers of the X-trail and Biofuels forum. But only if there is no further question of my credibility as I find
this time-consuming and sapping.

For now, enjoy the photos - the experience had us scratching our heads, but it took a couple years off our lives, and I’d do it all over again.

________, mate, this one's for you.


As ever,


________


"<<

[Terry Syd Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Terry Syd]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Tilly, thanks for the graph and the link. That is exactly what I would expect from the dyno. Looks like the guy had access to one and it didn't cost him $35,000 for the use of it.

Following the link provided another discussion about lubricant additives (I'm a fan of teflon additives). The lubricant in question is called Power Up, but in the discussion the fellow mentions the Filtch gizmo. Here is the qrote -

"But just so you know where I'm coming from. My own engine oil tests proved it lowered wear particles in our oil by an average of 21%. Our transmission repairs went down by 57%. I went as far as using 2 vehicle classes some that were outside in the winter and some that were inside in the winter. The outside ones had the same wear as the inside ones had but the outside vehicles had Powerup in them. When I added the inside ones to the test the wear particles went down on average 21%. I did a lot of testing on this product to prove it didn't work. I personally tested vehicles that had travelled 6 million kilometers during testing. Everything I did proved the opposite. So unless you want to go and do the expensive oil testing and take a year using vehicles that travel 3 million kilometers a year then you either believe it or you don't. In the 13 years I have been running this Police Garage we have never had an engine fail because of wear or lack of lubricant. Thats 39 million kilometers of driving. Not bad IMHO.

I also did testing on a Fitch mecho when I was in the armed forces. It didn't make a bit of difference. We used generator sets with load banks and not 1 Iota of difference was shown. But really I could care less if anyone believes me or not about powerup. I don't have a penny invested in it so use it or don't. "

By the way, I use the teflon additives just to reduce wear at high pressure surfaces like engine rings and gear faces - I don't notice any increase in fuel economy, just a reduction in mechanical wear.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Filch Catalyser- TOTAL RUBBISH!

Hello Leongster,

Did you miss the Dyno test posted above?



Tilly

[Terry Syd Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Terry Syd]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Oh wow, lots of pretty pictures, even guys in uniforms!

A driving test is less useful than an objective test on an impartial device like a dyno - that's why they use the damn things!

I can fiddle driving tests till the cows come home; shift points, tyre pressure, etc.

Heck, the fire truck may be turbocharged. Did the driver use the same starting technique for each fuel? Did he come off the line from idle for each test, or for the Filtch test did he hold the brakes and rev the engine to build the turbo revs before taking off?

Expect another post from these guys, con-men just keep it coming, They seem to think if they just keep feeding BS to people that eventually they will hit on something that the gulible will swallow.

Sociopaths, I hate 'em. I have more respect for armed robbers than con-men. At least the armed robber is honest in what he is doing.

[Guest Close leongster]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Tilly,

Yes I saw the graph and read the link. I have no reason to doubt the credibility of this thread. The side article on power-up is interesting. This thing contains Vac-5 and molybdenum. Similar fluid to what's in M-10 and Millitec, both chlorine based compounds with trace mo2. They share the same active constituent as other brand names like motor-up etc, albeit in different base fluids. I won't share my views on these fluids here, for now at least.

_________________________________
Terry,

I'd appreciate if you could quit with the accusations. Please. We appear to be making progress on this forum.

FYI: All acceleration was from a standing start, unbraked. No fancy drag-strip style brakes and accelerator footywork, even though I was tempted to suggest that ;-) Transmission was fully automatic with all shifting done automatically

These guys follow an ICAO procedure called form-7. Average of 3, 2-way runs.They park it, release the brakes and stand on the accelerator. Timer sits inside the cab with driver - fire crew staff only are allowed in there. Yes, the diesel had a turbocharger. It puts out 500bhp.


Please read the thread I posted on the test. Other than this, I'll not respond to any more innuendo.

thanks and regards


Eddie

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Filch Catalyser- Total Rubbish

Hello Terry,
Exactly the point. I have read through a number of the tests that Filch use to justify their claims.
They are either scientifically meaningless, or the information provided is so vague as to be meaningless.

Case in point:
Diesel Tailpipe Emissions & Fuel Efficiency Test performed by Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd Melbourne Australia which is quoted by Fitch as proof that their device gives better fuel economy and fewer emissions.
This test seems to have involved two 29.9 minute driving tests, one without the Fitch and the other with the fitch.
Guess who the driver was for these tests.
Mr. Bill Sheather from Fitch Fuel Catalyst and known on this forum in this thread as Bowser Buster.
How valid do you think this test is?

Another test Fitch have on their Website is the Evaluation of Advance Power Systems International Inc. Fitch Fuel Catalyst. performed by Vehicle and Engine Emission Testing Services Ronkonkoma NY.
It appears this test involves Fitch delivering a vehicle to the testing station and certain tests are performed on the vehicle in the condition it is delivered.
After the test, the vehicle is apparently driven away by Fitch for a day or a week or month and from time to time Fitch returns the vehicle to have it tested, sometimes with the Filch devise fitted and sometimes with it removed, but the tests are apparently performed on the vehicles only exactly in the condition as the vehicle is delivered to the testing authority.
Where is the sciencetific validity in that?

The fellow who performed the Dyno tests posted above made this observation on another Motorcycle forum:
"On the day of the test, I baselined the bike on the regular fuel, noting the exact engine temperature The fuel was drained and the treated fuel was poured into the tank. Tyhe exact same engine temperature was used on the dyno runs.
The result? 100% no difference in either dyno runs.
If you'll notice, in the claims that Fitch provides are all on air cooled Harleys. Any good dyno operator knows that engine temperature can drastically effect dyno results. From series of runs to series of runs on the air cooled motors, I have seen power increases, while making no changes!"

Hello Leongster, yes, I agree with you, we have made GREAT progress on this forum!
The question is answered.
The above Dyno trace is the proof required to show once and for all that the Filtch Fuel Money Catalyser is meaningless Garbage and does not work.
The story is finished
Why are you still discussing this?

PLEASE do not start another thread about another SCAM product!
While I do take a certain pride in being able to eventually find the internet proof that shows them to be a Crapola SCAM, you are giving me a headache!

Tell us where you are in your biodiesel endeavours.

Tilly
P.S. After reading through a number of Motorcycle forums, I have developed a whole new respect for these fellows.
Some of these guys really know what they are talking about!

[Dodge Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dodge]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Its a dud, what a surprise, you would improve vechile performance more by giving the paint a polish.
What will we do now, its was going to fix everything, i know make biodiesel.

[tillyfromparadise Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tillyfromparadise]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

Hello Dodge,
I was devestated!

Tilly

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: The Fitch Catalyst - Genuine Improvement or Fake Hype?

At this stage it would be valid to think about what else could be "invented" to increase fuel economy.
I propose a homeopathic fuel shaker.

Take a one litre high density plastic bottle and place in it 7 teflon spheres (balls) 7 mm in diameter. Add 6 ceramic spheres 6 mm in diameter and one 15mm wooden cube made from South American Sandal wood also know as "Palo Santo".
When you fill in with your favorite fuel, (it works for petrol or diesel bio diesel or Ethanol) fill in the homeopathic shaker with 1000cc of fuel and shake 10 times. Stop for 10 seconds and shake again vigorously 11 times. Stop for 11 seconds and shake again this time slow and with a pause between each shake up to 12 times. Now pour half of the content in your car, refill with new fuel and repeat the procedure. Next pour half the content in your car again and do the whole thing one last time.

You have just made a tank full of potentiated fuel!
The collision of teflon ceramic and sandal wood with the fuel create a high frequency vibration that will be transmitted to the rest of the fuel. The dilution of the fuel adds to the power in fact if you had the patience to do it 7 times the particles will be diluted to the Avogadro number times 7 and your fuel in the tank will be as powerful as Nitro. etc etc etc, add here you favorite wild claim of saving the environment, smooth engine, save oil, increase the power of your headlight, prolong the life our your battery and make your paint work glow, not to mention satisfy your girl friend

I am positive that polishing a bit the text and adding some colour to my claims I can market this on e-bay for years no problem.

[Guest Close leongster]

Thread: fitch fuel catalyst....who uses em, and are they for real?

Chaps, sounds like the dyno test of the biodiesel ssaanyong is all but dead. (Sigh.)

Guess I'll be leaving this forum for good. Besides, gotta get back to the real world. It's been fun. Honest. And I really do wish all of you the best. Anyone that makes their own fuel, you've got to take your hat off to them.

Before I go, I checked that motorcycle site you've all been referencing. These guys do know their stuff, judging by their vernacular.

If it's all the same, there was one intriguing entry. For what it's worth, here it is in case some missed it. Just don't go calling this guy any names now, y'hear!

All the best,


Eddie





http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewth...ime=1032479211

Thread: fitch fuel catalyst....who uses em, and are they for real?

Y2KZX12R wrote:

"Jason, the short answer is yes and no. Or I should say, only if it needs to.
It does work as a catalyist to "break" some of the carbon chains to a more fully combustable length.

Gasoline isnt a singular chemical, it is made up of anywhere from about 15-130 or more types of carbon chains.
Ideally the length of any of those chains is 6-12 carbon atoms long. These mollecular chains are formed naturally but most are formed in the cracking tower during refining.
Early on in the production of gasoline they only "cracked" molecular chains to form more of the usefull 6-12 carbon aton length chains. This ment breaking the real long chains into shorter ones to increase the amount of gasoline produced per barrel of oil. In the proccess.
Then in the 40's they started to use solid catalyist pellets in the catalyzing proccess. These were solid catalyist spheres that were churned in the tower. They started to combine shorter chains into longer ones, this also increased the yield of gasoline per barrel. The Britts also used cold cracking in the spitfires during WWII. This was done with an inline catalyist just prior to burning the fuel. it only works on specific chains and only if those chains are present in the fuel. The Britts got more range out of the spit fires using it.
Later on the oil companies started to "hydro crack" by introducting hydrogen atoms under high pressure and temp to bring gasoline yields even higher. Several times the amount of gasoline that was naturally found in a barrel.
Prat and whitney has used them on turbines in generator sets and has publically stated thast the KW production per pound of fuel DID increase. They now use a catalyist on all generator sets.
It may not be made by the Fitch company. But the principal is the same.

I've had a set of Fitch catalyists for many years. They go in what ever bike I own at the time.
I have to admit that the price is a bit high. I'd imagine if you knew the formula of the alloy then you could make dozzens for the cost of 1 set. But I doubt they will give you the alloy composition. Besides, they patented that particular alloy. Thats not saying that you couldnt change the formula a but to work around it.

I myself back in 1998 used a 4 gas analyzer and compared fuel that was in my fuel tank for 3 days with the Fitch to fuel from the exact same pump nozzle put in a can at the same fill up.
The unburned hydrocarbons were about 20% lower with the fuel in the tank with the fitch vs the fuel put in a can. So the fuel with the Fitch does burn more completely.
Were splitting hairs here, and you wont ever "feal" more power. But you will see a cleaner combustion chamber on disassembly. And if you get a batch of fuel that is crappy, you may not ever notice it."