HMW polyisobutylene

[GMorg]

Below are the current summary statistics:

Summary:
without PIB I am getting 20.32 +/- 1.1 MPG.
n=8, total miles equals 2702

with PIB, I am getting 22.16 +/- 0.57 MPG
n=6, total miles equals 2173


I am finding it curious that the standard errors are not more similar between the treatments.

 

[friendly_jacek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMorg:
Below are the current summary statistics:

Summary:
without PIB I am getting 20.32 +/- 1.1 MPG.
n=8, total miles equals 2702

with PIB, I am getting 22.16 +/- 0.57 MPG
n=6, total miles equals 2173


I am finding it curious that the standard errors are not more similar between the treatments.

---

One needs to calculate p value and confidence intervals. Lets make it scientific!

 

[GMorg]

friendly_jacek wrote: "One needs to calculate p value and confidence intervals."

Well, at this point, I am still collecting data and offering easy-to-digest summaries. If the data are normally distributed, the confidence interval can be estimated from the standard deviation.

There are not enough data yet to statistically determine if the data are normall distributed. With a sufficiently large dataset, I expect that MPG should be normall distributed. We can work from that assumption.

The p-value can be considered as the threshold probability of reaching an incorrect conclusion. Since no conclusions have been made yet, a p-value cannot be determined. Also, the two treatments appear to have different variances. As noted above, I am surprized. However, I would guess that over time this difference will disappear. If the difference does not wash-out, this fact will affect the type of analysis that would be appropriate.

In addition, to analyse the data in the way you suggest, we would have to assume that there are no other factors to consider. However, it appears that MPG is affected by time of year and miles on the vehicle (though those two variable are currently confounded). Over time, if I continue to collect data, I will likely analyze the dataset by analysis of variance. So that I can look for interactions between treatment and, at least, time of year.

I don't think that I can get any more intellectually honest than supplying the raw data. Readers are free to consider the data however they choose (valid or not). The only way that I could make this more "scientific" at the moment would be to not share data and to only offer methods, data summaries, and conclusions at the end of the process. My occupation is scientist. I typically do not share data until after it can be adequately analysed. Since I don't know if I will ever actually complete this experiment, I am offering the data approximately realtime. The risk is that it will be analysed inappropriately and lead some to an invalid conclusion.

 

[GMorg]

So, out of 12,000 members, am I the only one is using the GTA HMW PIB product? I realize that it "ain't" lube, but increased mileage and more pep is a good thing. I could really use some independent information - for or against.

 

[GMorg]

I am considering a different experimental design. I am considering using my wife's car for the experiment, but doing the whole thing so that she is blinded from treatment. I would do all fuelings and either add PIB or not, but I would not let her know which treatment is in the tank. I could, at least, control for any bias that is being introduced due to my knowledge of treatment. The problem is that my never lets the tank get below half empty (in her mind it is never half full). So, switching between treatments would be difficult.

 

[friendly_jacek]

I did some reading on it, and considered ordering, but I was not clear if it was cost effective.
I first heard about it on subaru forums where people would mostly use it to decrease the insane octane requirements of the WRX cars. It worked well for them, but my cars take 87 gas.

This is not a snake oil and State of CA officially recognized the emission decreasing abilities of this stuff.

I did some experiments with acetone and Lucas UCL with negative results. I guess I should try this next.

The blinding idea is very good indeed.

 

[GMorg]

Last tank of PIB for this cycle. I am switching to the no-PIB treatment. In an attempt to reduce PIB carry-over, I waited until the idoit light came on that warned of low fuel level.

Latest update:

without PIB I am getting 20.32 +/- 1.1 MPG.
n=8, total miles equals 2702

with PIB, I am getting 22.26 +/- 0.58 MPG
n=7, total miles equals 2660


raw data:

code:

---

Date Odometer Fill Metered Miles MPG Treatment

17-Feb 9793

28-Feb 10121 17.36 19.6 328 18.89

9-Mar 10528 18.8 22.3 407 21.65 PIB

21-Mar 10914 18.8 20.8 386 20.53

3-Apr 11286 18.4 21 372 20.22

9-Apr 11597 14.38 22.7 311 21.63 PIB

13-Apr 11930 15.06 23 333 22.11 PIB

24-Apr 12365 19.7 22.9 435 22.08 PIB

5-May 12792 19.5 22.3 427 21.90



14-Jun 16255

22-Jun 16610 16.5 22.5 355 21.52

30-Jun 16880 14.4 20.6 270 18.75

10-Jul 17185 14.8 21 305 20.61

17-Jul 17444 12.85 20.9 259 20.16 MMO

20-Jul 17787 14.8 22.9 343 23.18 MMO/PIB

27-Jul 18131 15.4 23.0 344 22.34 MMO/PIB

4-Aug 18618 21.3 23.6 487 22.86 MMO/PIB

---

 

[GMorg]

For those that want play-by-play analysis, please find summary statistics below. Beware that many assumptions play into a T-test - no interactions, equal variance, normal distribution, ect.

code:

---

No PIB PIB

Mean 20.45 22.26

Std Dev 1.14 0.58

Std Err 0.40 0.22

95% conf 0.96 0.53

99% conf 1.42 0.82

obs no. 8 7

max 21.90 23.18

min 18.75 21.63



From idependent T-test;

t: -3.78

P: .00228

samples are different at the 0.05 level

---

 

[friendly_jacek]

Clearly, the statistics suport that you get the MPG gain. Is it cost effective? I assume you mostly drive city? What car?

 

[GMorg]

The GTA-PIB and associated shipping costs add about 13 cents per gallon to the cost of gas. So, as long as gas is more than about $1.30 per gallon (from now on I think), then I am saving money.

Vehicle is a 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6 with the LX9 3500 (3.5L V6). Driving is mostly country roads or small town city. Some stop lights and stop signs. Rarely ever caught in stop and go traffic. Rarely ever get above 55 mph.

 

[bulwnkl]

Where do we get the stuff now, GMorg? Consumer sales have been discontinued. I'm a day late and a dollar short, it looks like. I'd like to try this stuff and contribute data here. Know of other sources?

 

[bulwnkl]

OK, nevermind. I found a place at usalubrications.com that still lists it for sale.

 

[GMorg]

bulwnkl,

I wasn't aware of the change. It looks they are concentrating on bulk sales.

 

[GMorg]

It looks like you can also buy the same product at need4speedpower.com. I like the type of bottle that is shown at need4speedpower.

 

[bulwnkl]

Ordered some today. I'll share my info here if you'd like, though I gather miles at a MUCH lower rate than you these days.

 

[wileyE]

Wouldn't play the "little is good more is better game" with it in the fuel. Conoco screwed up last year at our local refinery with too much heavy polymer. Ended up paying for injector cleaning claims all over the northwest.

http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=36995

 

[GMorg]

bulwnkl,
Feel free to include the data here. It may prove convenient to have most of the PIB info in one thread.

wileyE,
I can't tell what sort of polymer nor what concentration contaminated the Conoco gas. However, I completely agree that HMW-PIB should not be overdosed, shock-dosed, or used haphazardly. The effective dose range is fairly narrow. There are also issues with dirty fuel tanks. HMW-PIB will pick-up trash in the tank and transfer it to the fuel pump and filter. Rusty tanks require caution.

However, with a clean tank and the ability to follow directions, I think that PIB is a useful fuel add.

 

[friendly_jacek]

I just got a delivery from USA Lubrications. Was supposed to be $19.95+8.95 but the card got charged for $35.90. The outfit looks like scam to me.
Furthermore, the bottle is full of clear and thin liquid.
I thought it was supposed to be thick and red?
Is this counterfeit?


Image hosted here:
http://rav4world.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=52752#52752

 

[LarryD]

I also ordered from USA Lubrications. I had a bad feeling about them and sent them an email to cancel the order. They did not respond to the email and sent the order anyway. It took two weeks to arrive.
They charged me $19.95 + $11.95 = $31.90 to send to PA from Arizona. I can't imagine a higher shipping rate to any other part of the country.
There is another outfit selling the product that seems more legit (will have to locate them).I beleive the current formulation is a clear liquid.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Same here, the guy behing the outfit, Lyman, charged me 12.95 for S&H vs. 8.95 the webside stated. Very arrogant when I tried to complain.

Found this info on NASIC forum, many Subaru folks use this as effective octane booster for their moded cars:

"Dear GTA Fuel Enhancer user,

This e-mail is going out to individuals who have purchased GTA Fuel Enhancer in the past to inform you that consumer sales of the product are being terminated. Unfortunately, such sales are a victim of success.
GTA Fuel Enhancer (aka Viscon) has been certified to reduce harmful emissions by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and certification by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is now imminent. Viscon now provides the means to diesel engine operators to meet stringent Texas emission standards and therefore the product has already been used to treat hundreds of millions of gallons of diesel fuel in that state.
The manufacturer of Viscon, GTAT, LLC, has changed hands due to a buy-out and the new owner wants to focus exclusively on the commercial diesel market. They will be selling directly to diesel fuel suppliers and large fleets. The consumer market was never a priority for the manufacturer and the new owner sees it as an unnecessary distraction from the large diesel market.
You will see that my website www.apdinc.com/GTAfuel.html is no longer linked to an order page and the website will soon come down as well. However, existing customers have been granted a short-term reprieve. YOU CAN STILL PURCHASE GTA FUEL ENHANCER/VISCON from my company for a short while. The manufacturer still has bottles and packaging material and is willing to fill orders from existing customers. We have both the gasoline and diesel versions of the product and you can order through the separate order web page at: http://apdinc.safeshopper.com/5/cat5.htm?276 or you can order by calling the toll-free number 800 421-1048.
While shipping costs have increased significantly due to the high fuel cost, sometimes the online calculator overprices it. We check all orders and we will adjust the shipping cost down if it is too high. Recently almost half the orders have gotten a reduction in shipping due to that. I don't know how long the consumer product supply will last. It could be a couple of weeks and possibly even a couple of months. Don't wait too long to place your order. The product has a long shelf life as long as it is not exposed to light. The gallon container is opaque so there is no problem with that, but the quart bottles are translucent so they will need to be stored away from light.
If you are interested in being a sales rep to sell Viscon to large fleets or diesel fuel suppliers, we are offering an 8% commission. I will be glad to speak with their technical specialists for you. The manufacturer will provide free samples for testing and technical assistance to set up the test protocol and test equipment.
Sorry that this has happened. We have so many customers who love the fuel savings and other benefits the product provides. At least you have one last chance to stock up before the product is no longer available to consumers. While the manufacturer would like to see Viscon get into the refineries for use in gasoline, it will be some years before it would be feasible. Please call with any questions or concerns.

Alan Roth, Ph.D.
President
Advanced Product Distributors, Inc.
10410 Kensington Parkway, Suite 211
Kensington, MD 20895
800 421-1048"