Scott at TheHinckleys.com
Mon Sep 17 10:52:30 EDT 2001
Ok, let us see what these patents are...
#4,802,931 - GM patent for a method of making a high-field strength
#4,496,395 - another patent for making a high-field-strength rare-earth magnet
#4,770,723 - more of the same
Now, magnets like these are very useful in a large number of applications.
An example in a car might be a small high-output alternator.
Nowhere does GM show any application for fuel conservation.
The device in question is not under GM patent.
Only the material used to make the magnet is covered by the patent.
I would love to see the full test procedure for the three tests in
question. I can certainly see one easy way to achieve those results with
any vehicle (with or without the fuel-saver installed).
1) Start cold engine
2) Do baseline test
3) Run engine for 20min (as listed on their test results)
4) Take new "improved" readings
I notice that they say that the "EPA" tested the vehicles, in reality it
was just a (random?) emissions testing station that was (of course) EPA
approved to do emissions testing. Ditto with the "Ford Motor Company" test.
I guess you could say I am skeptical.
At 11:18 17-09-01 -0400, gsfent wrote:
> I don't usually go for these silly things, but it appears that the tests
>showed improvement not only in an older vehicle, but in an (almost) new
>Jeep.I've included the link below. Not sure the technology makes sense, but
>supposedly GM has 3 patents (which makes one wonder why GM does not use). Is
>it possible to improve Audi gas mileage??
>91 200qa (18/24 mpg)
More information about the quattro