|
"I havent seen one adverse report about this product only adverse opinion and that is usually from contributors that are unable to produce any proof or experience."
You are being incredibly naive. You haven't seen one adverse report, so the product must be good?
No-one has to produce proof of the negative (that it doesn't work) - it's up to the manufacturers to produce proof that it does.
From the website, the claims are that the product:
Permanently Dissolves water in Carbon, Bio and Aviation Fuels
Reduces Maintenance Costs
Enhances Engine Performance
Reduces Harmful Emissions with Greater Fuel Efficiency
Cleans Filters and Injectors
The proof? Forget the video - it's too easy to mislead people this way; it's worthless as evidence.
Elsewhere on the website there are other pieces of "evidence"; let's take one, that purports to prove improved economy. It is based on tests on ONE vehicle (the document admits the sample is "small" (!) and has been conducted by someone who describes himself thus: "I am Automotive Engineer having passed all qualifications through to Advanced Trades Certificate including extension certificates in LPG and CNG gases. I have 13 years experience in Automotive Engineering including Heavy Transport and Off Shore Oil Exploration and general Automotive work. I am currently completing papers in Management and marketing at The University Of Waikato." Does this inspire confidence?
Another document, produced by London City University, referred to as "Engine Tests with Aquasolve" tests three additives (identified as 6.2, 3.24 and 3.21) which are not explicitly identified as part of the Aquasolve formula. So we don't know what they were testing.
I've spent more than enough time trying to show that it's not even necessary to attempt to prove this stuff doesn't work - there simply isn't any evidence it does.
In any case, commercially available diesel fuel contains additives. I suggest Aquasolve either doesn't work, or at best duplicates what's already there.
Edited by FP on 19/03/2013 at 12:52
|
