Spitfire Catalyst Octane Booster

[boxofbits]

Good afternoon all

 

Whilst at the Beaulieu Autojumble yesterday I came across a stand which was selling the 'Spitfire' Fuel Catalyst.

 

It's four headline claims are :-

 

Boosts Octane from 95 to 99/100

Lubricates Valves

Lowers Burn Temperature

Stops Fuel Going Stale

 

Additionally, it stops the 'bad' effects of Ethanol in fuel up to E15.

 

It is in the form of a group of pellets which are immersed permanently into the fuel tank. They claim there is no need for octane boosters or other additives, and it will protect for up to 100,000 miles. There is a 6,000 mile test period where the supplier will refund any user who is not happy with the product ( how would you know?) Cost - around £30. With this product there is also no need to fit hardened valve seats due to the lower burn temperature.

 

I have looked across the Internet and the opinions appear to be inconclusive. It was allegedly initially invented by someone by the name of Broquet who developed it for use with the RAF. Hurricanes sent to Russia during WW2 had difficulty running on Russian fuel, and according to one forum thread 134 Squadron almost suffered a distaster when the fuel began waxing and causing the Merlin engines to cut out. The solution as above apparently solved the issue.

 

I have attached the forum thread, and there are conflicting posts on its validity, notably by Lu Zuckerman and Sir George Cayley, who appears to support the product.

 

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-70278.html

 

http://www.spitfirefuelcatalyst.co.uk

 

Anyone have any views on this, or is it just snake oil?!

 

Regards

 

Kevin

Edited September 3, 2017 by boxofbits

[Hamish]

I would want to see it endorsed by the likes of

http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/fuel-information/

H

[john.r.davies]

Oh, dear! That old nonsense!

Kevin, for a start Sir George Caley, eminent early aeronautical engineer (1773-1857), cannot be the actual contributor to that website. So forget the authority in that name, and note that the 'article' "Sir George" copies was written by "D Lock & Associates, Distributors of The Broquet Catalyst." Hardly disinterested agents.

 

"Lu Zuckerman" may or may not be who he claims to be. That name is unusual, and appears as an aircraft engineer, specialising in safety, not a chemical salesman. And " Lu Zuckerman" was talking about polyisobutylene, not a lead/tin alloy.

 

And read the rest of that thread, which may or may not tell a true story, but relates that the Broquet formula was to add lead to unleaded fuel. It may do that but even Broquet, if he ever existed because there are NO references to a "Henry Broquet" in the whole of the Internet that don't mention the pellets, didn't claim that they "Lower Burn Temperature" or "Stop Fuel Going Stale" let alone "stop the 'bad' effects of Ethanol in fuel".

 

Claims that they enable classics to run on unleaded are void, as many have found that the 'lead memory' in valve seats enable them todo so without ill effect, for thousands of miles.

 

I cannot find the alleged study by FBHMC on a number of fuel additives, whiuhc is said to have been negative, but here is a paper from the U of Auckland, " Testing of tin based fuel additives". http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/fuelcatalyst/hiddenreport1.htm Quote from abstract, "no indication of any significant change in performance", yet, "two drivers reported significant perceived improvements in running characteristic of their vehicles". It's all in perception, and when yiou've paid good money for a mod, you expect to see some improvement!

 

John

Edited September 3, 2017 by john.r.davies

[ed_h]

I haven't looked at this particular product, but it is almost certainly another example of using tin or tin based alloys as a fuel "catalyst".

 

All of these products refer to some version of the RAF story, and make impressive claims about improving modern fuels.

 

There have been a few scientific tests that fail to show any significant benefits. There are also many "tests" that claim positive results, but these all seem to be poorly done, or are sponsored by folks with financial interest.

 

Like many flim-flam products, their pitch is based on a grain of truth. The story about poor Russian fuel in British aircraft may be more about fuel contamination. Tin may be effective against certain kinds of contamination, but we aren't likely to see this in modern fuels.

 

Caveat Emptor

 

Ed

[boxofbits]

Hi John & Ed

 

Very interesting comments. I hadn't gone as far as checking out the forum names or indeed Henry Broquet, and it doesn't look good without any reference to this 'inventor', as I'm sure his name would be listed somewhere.

 

I think they rely heavily on defending forum articles based on the subject, especially with an RAF connection, and suspect also it's perception is something of a placebo effect!

 

It is difficult if not impossible for any classic car owner to come to any scientific conclusion of whether or not the product is actually working, and as you say the lead memory alone in older valve seats could offer protection for several thousand miles. There was one TR driver on here a few days ago who stated that he did not have hardened valve seats and drove the car on a regular basis without any discernible VSR.

 

If it's sold by deception it is surprising they can get away with selling it at events such as Beaulieu to unsuspecting owners of classic vehicles in the belief that it works.

 

Kevin

[Motorsport Mickey]

Yet another good reason to use the search facility, try it under "snake" and there are pages of it. Not all of the references are to this particular scam but it's included amongst some others.
As concluded it is of course hog wash, and we only have to ask ourselves "wouldn't almost any of the car manufacturers who spent 50-60 million pounds a year on research trying to increase MPG have stumbled upon this as a legal way to get vehicles to achieve emissions rather than cheating the system and getting stung with 20 Billion pound fines and counting ? Of course they would, absolute crap and to paraphrase John Ruskin "people who think they get something for nothing (or very little) are the legal prey of these sorts of firms".

 

Mick Richards

[Lebro]

Utter BO****CKS

 

Bob

[mike3739]

Utter BO****CKS

 

Bob

Not good then Bob

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Geko]

Yes, again ! http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/55223-does-this-work-or-is-it-too-good-to-be-true/?hl=%2Bgood+%2Btrue

[roy53]

Oh for the departed Dr Mike Bingley when you need him.

Told many a good story of the Russians trying to obtain his fuel additive to stop their tanks pinking when he traveled to Moscow.

He would have a chemist opinion on this.

 

Roy

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Roy,

 

Mike would have given up repeating his explanations by now - he and I alike got fed up of repeating ourselves over and over again to the gullible.

 

I find it hard to imagine what sort of clot takes any notice whatsoever of all this garbage from the 'fuel pellet' brigade, you don't need any more than O-Level Chemistry to appreciate that the whole idea is a complete nonsense.

 

Quite honestly, if some damn fool wishes to throw good money at these stupid things, then why not let them support someone else's fraudulent lifestyle ?

 

Cheers

 

Alec

[MikeF]

Well said Alec, we went into all this at great length and detail some time ago as a forum search will reveal. However if people still want to try this idea out then simply pop along to a diy shed or Maplins etc and buy a reel of lead free solder and drop a bit in your fuel tank. Lead-free solder is actually 99.7% tin and so will have exactly the same effect as the pellets. That is to say none at all, a lot cheaper though.

 

 

Mike

[ed_h]

We could be a little more charitable to the OP. Not everyone has the benefit of a Chemistry degree, or at least long history of seeing these products come and go. There probably isn't one of us who in younger, more innocent years, never took a second look at a product like this one and wondered if it really could work.

 

I think the OP was at least a little skeptical--That's why he asked.

 

Ed.

[Graham Robson]

For related subjects, see under 'Perpetual motion machines' ....

[Hamish]

Well said Alec, we went into all this at great length and detail some time ago as a forum search will reveal. However if people still want to try this idea out then simply pop along to a diy shed or Maplins etc and buy a reel of lead free solder and drop a bit in your fuel tank. Lead-free solder is actually 99.7% tin and so will have exactly the same effect as the pellets. That is to say none at all, a lot cheaper though.

 

 

Mike

Mike

 

I don't understand why you would go for the lead free solder ?

Surely you need the leaded version as a lead replacement to the lead free petrol ?

 

But thanks for the pointer

H

[john.r.davies]

Other metals can provide the same antiknock and valve seat protection. They are just more expensive.

 

The history of lead in petrol, and CFCs in aerosols, was the subject of a New Scientist article last June, "Inventor hero was a one-man environmental disaster". Yes, it was one scientist who started, promoted and fought against the removal of both those environmental threats. See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431290-800-inventor-hero-was-a-oneman-environmental-disaster/

John

[MikeF]

Mike

 

I don't understand why you would go for the lead free solder ?

Surely you need the leaded version as a lead replacement to the lead free petrol ?

 

But thanks for the pointer

H

Argh, Confession. That’s because I didn't read more than the first few lines, saw that they were talking about Broquet pellets and stopped reading, seen it all before. Sorry for that, also for my initial remarks being somewhat harsh to original poster.

Now I have properly read both references.

Broquet pellets are just tin, probably at best commercial grade which would be about 99.9X% pure. Hence my “suggestion” to use lead-free solder which is typically 99.7 tin, balance copper. I don’t think the 0.2% difference in tin content is significant in this context. These things have been around for decades, product claims were for increased mileage and some reduction in exhaust emissions. They all hark back to the Russians and Hurricanes etc. But if you read the Russian stuff and boil it down to statements of fact rather than allusions, all it says is they were testing effects of various substances one of which was tin. There are no documented experiments or results which specifically state the presence of tin in the fuel tank produced the results now claimed as fact.

 

To answer your question and turning to the Spitfire claims. They have added some extra properties but without seemingly changing the product – save for their pictures showing attractive shiny spheres in a net compared to the Pontefract cake shapes and pellets of other suppliers

 

Whoever their copywriter is, he jumped from poor quality fuel i.e. low octane [from not enough tetra ethyl lead] to modern lead-free petrol and then conflated modern additives with the tin pellets. Both additives so they are doing the same job. – Right?

Wrong!

Additives for lead free petrol depending on their type, raise octane number or protect against valve seat recession or both. To do this they are mixed with the fuel and are present in the combustion chamber when the fuel is burnt and modify what’s happening and are used up.

The tin pellets on the other hand are in the fuel tank. Their mere presence there it is claimed, somehow modifies the fuel or its behaviour in the combustion chamber, but is not consumed or used up. This would make it, I dunno a remote catalyst? No explanation for this effect is given. I doubt there is one.

 

2 more comments to add.

If the mere presence of tin could do as claimed I think the automotive people - even Volkswagen - would be all over it. It’s simple economics: Tin costs about £20,000 a tonne as a raw material. Platinum as used in exhaust catalysts is about £24,000,000.

A sphere is the worst possible shape to use for the tin, it gives maximum volume for minimum area, the exact opposite of what you would use to get the maximum effect, not much engineering or science there. Quite literally the product is a load of balls.

 

 

Mike

Edited September 5, 2017 by MikeF

[Lebro]

I think that's more or less what I said

 

Bob.

[RobH]

.. except that yours was rather more concise Bob.

[boxofbits]

Hi all

 

Fairly well rounded condemnation - obviously none of you work for Spitfire Promotions

 

Further to my original post and re-reading the leaflet, I emailed the supplier asking for a data sheet which detailed how the fuel catalyst actually worked, how it reacted to immersion in standard unleaded fuel, and guidelines as to how the consumer would be expected to 'test' the product within the 6,000 mile warranty period. I received the following reply, not it appears from someone by the name of Broquet!

 

"this product was first developed for the Royal Air Force to protect against poor quality fuel

this is a tin amalgam which has the effect of improving octane giving a valve buffer or lubrication as did lead and the silver added prevents bacteria forming in the water that ethanol produces in the fuel

this product has been tested by the csma for many years and over 50 % of my sales are now formed from existing users who have found that my product works

the money back guarantee far exceeds the legal protection trial period required

i am not a con merchant

i produce a product that works at a reasonable price with a guarantee that is second to done to protect the consumer

i do not just appear at classic car shows for one year then dissapear

this must have been my 20th beaulieu "

 

I looked up the CSMA btw, which appears to be nothing more than an online discount voucher store so not sure how they would be best qualified to evaluate the product. The supplier is apparently not a conman.

 

Regards

 

Kevin

[RobH]

CSMA is (or was ) the Civil Service Motoring Association - now known as Boundless (or, to some, 'Groundless' since it has more-or-less morphed into a life-style and travel organisation). Hardly a credible scientific outfit and AFAIK they never had any means of doing proper testing other than through recommendations by members.

[peejay4A]

Civil Service Motoring Association, now called Boundless. They advertised the Broquet quite a few years ago which I suppose counts as endorsement to some. They did not test it.

 

Simulpost.

Edited September 5, 2017 by peejay4A