Viscon; "The Holy Grail of Fuel Additives???"

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cadchris

Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Florida
Hey guys,

I just made this post in the "Oil Additive" section, but from an earlier post on that thread, the whole thread should've been started here on the "Fuel Additive" section.
Early discussion about VISCON on BITOG

Anyway, someone had brought back the thread today before I did about the Viscon Fuel Additive.

Here's what I posted there:

I was going to do a right up titled "Viscon; The Holy Grail of Fuel Additives????" and then post this threads link for everyone to reference to along with the early discussions about Viscon on BITOG and some other sites....oh well.
thumbsup2.gif



I just didn't post anything up here because I wanted to go back through my e-mails I had with the owner of Viscon regarding the old distributors and some controversy with one of them who was selling their additive along with questionable business practices since they were packaging it themselves, but from what he said, "Retail" was never his goal because of all the snake oils and the major investment to try and market it with 100's of products on the Parts Stores shelves, so he always concentrated and mainstreamed this additive for years to the industrial diesel fuel markets. It was a good story, and I couldn't believe I was actually talking to the Pres. of the company but this stuff turned out to be substantially genuine.

From what I remember about the phone conversation I had with the owner of Viscon, he gave me a real education of what he was trying to achieve for over 10 yrs. and his goal was to get Calif. to require all diesel fuel to add Viscon at the fuel depot rack. I think he said it would be a miracle if it happened let alone required to be added to all gasoline also at the fuel rack. From what I remember, it was a huge amount of "Red Tape" this guy was dealing with, and I, and even he figured he'd never get the C.A.R.B. approval.

Looks like he finally got his approval as the "Only" fuel additive in the industry approved by the "California Air Resource Board" which is supposed to be substantially significant.....!
News Story on CARB Approval

CARB Approval Docs.

Here is their other website I found a few years ago:
Viscon International Site

Here are their 5 Youtube Videos:
Viscon Videos


Pretty exciting......I wonder if we should all buy stock in this company!

I always wanted to try this stuff, but my cars are too screwed up now! Maybe it'll save me some "Moolah" on my 91' Brougham because my 3-4 band has been burned up for a year and I drive around town with only 1st and 2nd! At least my coast band isn't holding in this 700R4 trans. so I can leave off the throttle w/o any trans breaking.
lol.gif


Now I need to find an additive to restore my 3-4 band!
33.gif



I just realized this thread was in the "Oil Additive" section. Maybe I'll start a new thread in the "Fuel Additive" section............

Regards,
Chris
 
Wow. All sounds so scammy this post I don't even wanna read it entirely through in the first place.

Edit: Also all the CARB "verifications" on their own website seem to say all they're doing is testing for safety, engine compatibility, and durability to get certified...not that the additive does anything.

In fact their own site says the only thing CAFE has tested:

Quote:
October 24 17, 2011 Bakersfield, CA. – Bakersfield based Viscon California LLC’s technology reduces particulate matter emissions from diesel exhaust by over 25%. This fact has recently been officially verified by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Executive Order. This long awaited verification from the State of California, makes Viscon the sole CARB approved diesel fuel additive in the State.


So it reduces particulate emissions. Cool. So does DPF.

Also the "news story" is just the media basically saying "this company is doing things, could be cool, they wanna do it everywhere." Actual imperical evidence; zero.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Wow. All sounds so scammy this post I don't even wanna read it entirely through in the first place.

Edit: Also all the CARB "verifications" on their own website seem to say all they're doing is testing for safety, engine compatibility, and durability to get certified...not that the additive does anything.

In fact their own site says the only thing CAFE has tested:

Quote:
October 24 17, 2011 Bakersfield, CA. – Bakersfield based Viscon California LLC’s technology reduces particulate matter emissions from diesel exhaust by over 25%. This fact has recently been officially verified by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Executive Order. This long awaited verification from the State of California, makes Viscon the sole CARB approved diesel fuel additive in the State.


So it reduces particulate emissions. Cool. So does DPF.

Also the "news story" is just the media basically saying "this company is doing things, could be cool, they wanna do it everywhere." Actual imperical evidence; zero.


I guess he is ramping the shares or something!! Lots of fuel additives get tested but at 3 cents extra a gallon I would doubt if it will become a requirement.
 
Last edited:
CARB is a joke. Many people take the cat off their vehicles and put them back on for inspection, because if a cat is left on full time they trigger an engine emissions inefficiency light long before they are supposed to. Not every diesel owner is a truck driver i get it, but so many are, who choose to fill up in arizona, buy additives that work in arizona, have kreen shipped to friends in arizona, and so on. Trying to help loses government revenue every time.
 
It was previosly marketed for retail under GTA - Vison has only wanted to sell it commercially for diesel use.

I'm hoping to stop by one of the truck stops that carries it retial to get some next time I'm passing by on a trip. It should be worthy of testing.

This isn't a MLM (multi-level-marketing) thing like those other incredulous mpg increasers.

Having never tried the stuff, I was intrigued by the previous thread by GMorg and am hoping to finally get a hold of some.

Edit:
The CARB approval shows reduction in PM emissions by 25% or more (yet slight increase in some other emissions). It wasn't approved for mpg increase - they test it for approval that it would not increase emissions / cancer rate for the public.
It is also only approved for OFF-ROAD diesel engine use in specific hp range. Any other use is not CARB approved.
Anyone who lived/saw pics of the LA Basin from the 70s/80s doesn't think that air quality laws and CARB are all that bad.
 
Last edited:
I am the one who revived the thread in the Oil Additives forum, and did so after reading through the entire thread and coming away impressed.

The OP took it a step further, providing good info and links, which I am just too lazy to do. But thanks for the thread, cadchris, and I hope this sparks some good discussions/debates/experiments! The science behind the product seems sound to this layman after reading the HMW PIB thread, which was started by a scientist and has comments from some heavy hitters on this site.
 
"In addition to the exhaust emission results the average fuel economy as measured gravimetrically was improved by 4.9% with the Viscon treated candidate fuel compared to the TxLed reference fuel."

From: Viscon Multi Media Evaluation

There is a bunch of info/testing on this stuff if you look for it.

It would probably be a good time to invest in some stock.
 
Is there other criteria for CARB approval to meet efficiency standards? I don't know, but I think this company has made some effort to get this far. Maybe this stuff will take off being required by the FED's as an additive if Big Oil doesn't have there way with him, and if it works, I'm surprised this guy is living to do TV interviews at all!
28.gif


I'm not an expert on this forum, and have read it from time to time over the past 6 yrs and haven't seen any fuel additive with what seems to have such extensive legitimate background. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I put this out there so it can be picked apart........just for fun, educational or practical purposes.

I wonder if any of the "Long Hauler Truck Forums" are talking about this stuff yet as they are the one's who can report their results with pretty good accuracy on known fuel usage routes ect. It might be interesting to find some of those forums and tell those truckers to pick some up if they are around those few truck stops that sell the stuff in S. Calif. I'm surprised he didn't concentrate on a deal to get it into the major truck stops like Flying J, Pilot, TA, ect. which would give it better exposure. Who knows, maybe they're working on it.

I had my own doubts about the company after my discussion with him a few years ago regarding some issues about those who were re-bottling Viscon for the aftermarket and some negative comments and what appeared to be product tampering by one vendor which was discussed on a different forum that I brought to Viscon's attention. He also requested those sites and had no knowledge of what was going on with his product, but I never heard back from him.

Also, I seriously asked him by e-mail for a standardized brokerage agreement and other documents so I could broker a deal between Viscon and my neighbor who sits on the board of a major mining company with operations in Peru, Central America, and Canada, but I never heard back from him, so I don't know why he didn't jump on that venture.

I had the feeling, this was a small operation that was overwelmed with it production and total efforts to get government approval.

I just thought the new CARB approval gave this product some legitimacy and where it might be going in the future. Personally, I wondered why this product wasn't tested at Argon or Sandia National Laboratories but maybe if he went that route, "Big Oil" would be on his back and I'm sure "BIG OIL" always keeps tabs on him and all the little guys products out there that are discussed on BITOG!
eek.gif


What kinds of scientific standardized tests are there that this should be tested under to see if it really does what it says in theory for fuel efficient combustion?
21.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: surfstar
"In addition to the exhaust emission results the average fuel economy as measured gravimetrically was improved by 4.9% with the Viscon treated candidate fuel compared to the TxLed reference fuel."

From: Viscon Multi Media Evaluation

There is a bunch of info/testing on this stuff if you look for it.

It would probably be a good time to invest in some stock.


Quote:
Gravimetric analysis describes a set of methods in analytical chemistry for the quantitative determination of an analyte based on the mass of a solid.


Their improvement is calculated by weighing the emissions, which are lighter, and extrapolating it into saying that less fuel was consumed to create it. While it is good, sound science, its not directly applicable to fuel efficiency, period. They're basically demonstrating that through scientific doublespeak they're trying to fool you into thinking 4.9% is absolute and should mean more miles per gallon in an engine which it absolutely does not. Someone trying to rook you like this should raise a huge red flag to how legitimate their claims are. NONE OF THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS ARE CERTIFIED OR QUANTIFIED, THEY ARE EXTRAPOLATED, THIS ADDITIVE REDUCES EMISSIONS, THAT IS IT.

Originally Posted By: cadchris
What kinds of scientific standardized tests are there that this should be tested under to see if it really does what it says in theory for fuel efficient combustion?
21.gif



The same type of evidence trucking companies, vehicle manufacturers, governments and fleet managers do every single day, real-world testing. I've seen trucks driving the highway with special "do not remove" tags on the tires because they're running special testing before. I've seen fleet managers run batteries of oil analysis on trucks after changing the brand of air filters they run. I the additive really worked to improve fuel economy this type of testing would be easy to get for free by simply giving the additive (or giving the additive at cost) to a huge company to let them run it for even a month, which could easily give you a few million miles if the company was big enough.

Great PR, too, so why hasn't Viscon done that?
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Originally Posted By: surfstar
"In addition to the exhaust emission results the average fuel economy as measured gravimetrically was improved by 4.9% with the Viscon treated candidate fuel compared to the TxLed reference fuel."

From: Viscon Multi Media Evaluation

There is a bunch of info/testing on this stuff if you look for it.

It would probably be a good time to invest in some stock.


Quote:
Gravimetric analysis describes a set of methods in analytical chemistry for the quantitative determination of an analyte based on the mass of a solid.


Their improvement is calculated by weighing the emissions, which are lighter, and extrapolating it into saying that less fuel was consumed to create it. While it is good, sound science, its not directly applicable to fuel efficiency, period. They're basically demonstrating that through scientific doublespeak they're trying to fool you into thinking 4.9% is absolute and should mean more miles per gallon in an engine which it absolutely does not. Someone trying to rook you like this should raise a huge red flag to how legitimate their claims are. NONE OF THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS ARE CERTIFIED OR QUANTIFIED, THEY ARE EXTRAPOLATED, THIS ADDITIVE REDUCES EMISSIONS, THAT IS IT.

Originally Posted By: cadchris
What kinds of scientific standardized tests are there that this should be tested under to see if it really does what it says in theory for fuel efficient combustion?
21.gif



The same type of evidence trucking companies, vehicle manufacturers, governments and fleet managers do every single day, real-world testing. I've seen trucks driving the highway with special "do not remove" tags on the tires because they're running special testing before. I've seen fleet managers run batteries of oil analysis on trucks after changing the brand of air filters they run. I the additive really worked to improve fuel economy this type of testing would be easy to get for free by simply giving the additive (or giving the additive at cost) to a huge company to let them run it for even a month, which could easily give you a few million miles if the company was big enough.

Great PR, too, so why hasn't Viscon done that?



What about these tests on their site?:

See this page below and links to USA, Peru, and China studies:

Viscon Field Tests for Fuel
Efficiency

Also same info with additional tests on their other site:
Viscon Intenational Site Tests for Fuel Economy


I just wonder if they are "only" emphasizing the emissions improvements to not p'ss off "Big Oil."

It kind of reminds me of an ignition technology I was researching and got linked to many different forums about a similar technology that was quickly buried. I saw a remark about one company that I think M.I.T. was head of the study. From all the very early info on different web-sites, reports from researchers at MIT, and a few news reports, the company was suddenly bought out by some other industry known company, and the researched project was abruptly terminated with MIT and this ignition technology was buried! If you want, I'll go back and find those studies and post it just as evidence of this conspiracy to restrict new science and technology to save fuel. This was technology that was definitely buried!

So, maybe if Viscon concentrated on how the product can improve fuel efficiency, the same would happen to his company. Maybe his approach is "Politically Correct" to address emissions, but I bet Big Oil is standing by when he gets enough attention to stop this additive if it truly could put a dent in the oil market. From the link that SURFSTAR posted, this product certainly has some extensive testing for emmisions, unless like you say, its basically a "Smoke" or what Viscon states: the lack of, and "Mirrors" game with a little taste of 3 Card Monty!

21.gif
 
No, I already proved you wrong once. You're wrong. Your excuses are stupid. I won't play a game where you keep coming back dumping links here trying to find some way to prove yourself in some way correct.

That's called being Congress and it needs to stop.
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Originally Posted By: surfstar
"In addition to the exhaust emission results the average fuel economy as measured gravimetrically was improved by 4.9% with the Viscon treated candidate fuel compared to the TxLed reference fuel."

From: Viscon Multi Media Evaluation

There is a bunch of info/testing on this stuff if you look for it.

It would probably be a good time to invest in some stock.


Quote:
Gravimetric analysis describes a set of methods in analytical chemistry for the quantitative determination of an analyte based on the mass of a solid.


Their improvement is calculated by weighing the emissions, which are lighter, and extrapolating it into saying that less fuel was consumed to create it. While it is good, sound science, its not directly applicable to fuel efficiency, period. They're basically demonstrating that through scientific doublespeak they're trying to fool you into thinking 4.9% is absolute and should mean more miles per gallon in an engine which it absolutely does not. Someone trying to rook you like this should raise a huge red flag to how legitimate their claims are. NONE OF THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS ARE CERTIFIED OR QUANTIFIED, THEY ARE EXTRAPOLATED, THIS ADDITIVE REDUCES EMISSIONS, THAT IS IT.

Originally Posted By: cadchris
What kinds of scientific standardized tests are there that this should be tested under to see if it really does what it says in theory for fuel efficient combustion?
21.gif



The same type of evidence trucking companies, vehicle manufacturers, governments and fleet managers do every single day, real-world testing. I've seen trucks driving the highway with special "do not remove" tags on the tires because they're running special testing before. I've seen fleet managers run batteries of oil analysis on trucks after changing the brand of air filters they run. I the additive really worked to improve fuel economy this type of testing would be easy to get for free by simply giving the additive (or giving the additive at cost) to a huge company to let them run it for even a month, which could easily give you a few million miles if the company was big enough.


Great PR, too, so why hasn't Viscon done that?



Hey listen. I only provided an answer to what I thought you were looking for on Viscon's site, so don't shoot, or mouth off to the messenger! I'm not wrong but simply tried to post a reply to your question. So if this info I posted is not adequate, say so in some intelligent manner or simply say Viscon is wrong.

You asked for "Field Tests" and I posted the link to 3 Field Tests with a lot of data but it wasn't certified by a lab but by: #1. Kern County School District used in their buses, #2. Power Generation of a 2000HP Sulzer Generator, #3. Port Facility Container Crane in China.

Yes I'm sure it could all be fabricated test results, but I posted it for review.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: cadchris

NONE OF THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS ARE CERTIFIED OR QUANTIFIED, THEY ARE EXTRAPOLATED, THIS ADDITIVE REDUCES EMISSIONS, THAT IS IT.

I just wonder if they are "only" emphasizing the emissions improvements to not p'ss off "Big Oil."

conspiracy to restrict new science and technology to save fuel. This was technology that was definitely buried!

its basically a "Smoke" or what Viscon states: the lack of, and "Mirrors" game with a little taste of 3 Card Monty!


That last line really does it for me. If there truly was a nearly 5% gain in ANYTHING due to the use of this amazing wonderful fantastic product it would already be purchased by a major company because it would be worth BILLIONS.

I say baloney.
 
Chevron Oronite: Polyisobutylene (PIB)-Based Fuel Additives

"Polyisobutylene (PIB)-based deposit-control fuel additives are polymeric chemicals used as additives in engine fuel (such as gasoline) to keep sludge, soot, oxidation products, and other deposit precursors from forming deposits onto and harming key engine parts. These deposits can rob an engine of power, reduce fuel economy, and increase harmful emissions."

While not mentioned for increasing economy, it is in use as deposit-control (DC) additive. Not specified is high vs low molecular weight.

A good read about DC additives and gas in general: Gas Tech Review

Only a hint of a possible PIB reference in that though: "Drag reducers are high-molecular-weight polymers that improve the fluid flow characteristics of low-viscosity petroleum products. As energy costs have increased, pipelines have sought more efficient ways to ship products. Drag reducers lower pumping costs by reducing friction between flowing gasoline and pipe walls."

Low-molecular-weight PIB is "an essential raw material in the manufacture of fuel additives and lubricant additives." http://www.performancechemicals.basf.com...isobutene/index


What does not specifically show up is the use of high-molecular-weight PIB as a fuel additive (as was the start of the previous thread by GMorg and the hoped focus of this thread). It is not mentioned if the Chevron Oronite additive(s) use HMW PIB.

Viscon is HMW PIB. It is peculiar that Chevron, and assumingly other gas/oil companies, have known of the presence and possible use of HMW PIB as a fuel additive. It seems as Viscon is not reinventing anything or creating anything unknown. Perhaps applying it differently?

Again, this is not an MLM marketed fuel economy booster and this thread should not treat it as such. Real discussion was had in the previous thread which died out. Hopefully this will pick back up with possible testing by some members also.
A 10% increase in fuel economy for a 1% increase in cost is what I'm interested in.
 
Thanks Guys for the follow-up and info that you posted. Looks like some good reading. I thought this thread was going to [censored] quickly but I'm glad it isn't.

I briefly remember reading those discussions here and on a few other forums years ago about LMW-PIB's and HMW-PIB's when I started to do searches about Viscon.

I can't even remember how I found out about Viscon being mentioned somewhere on some forum but I remember it was a vague post, but it led me to BITOG.

I'm just very surprised this stuff has once again gone to retail packaging from my previous conversations with Viscon, unless they need to either raise quick cash, mainstream awareness, and/or product placement to get bought out by someone like ITW or SOPUS brands or maybe some other strategic business venture.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Their improvement is calculated by weighing the emissions, which are lighter, and extrapolating it into saying that less fuel was consumed to create it. While it is good, sound science, its not directly applicable to fuel efficiency, period.


Umm no, gravimetric fuel consumption is measuring the weight of fuel consumed for a given otput over a given time.

e.g. 0.45lb/hphr...

volumetric would be volume per unit time.

The emissions stuff is calibrating the exhaust gas composition back to theoretical hydrocarbon chemistry, where HC + (O2 +3.76N2) = CO2+CO+HC+N2+NOx+)2

Not saying that this stuff isn't snake oil, just that they are claiming to measure actual fuel mass burned for power output, not extrapolating back from exhaust emissions as you incorrectly assert.

You may have heard of the SAE, and what their acronym means, and here's there take...

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/publications/sae-reports/evaluating-fuel-economy.pdf

Quote:
Fuel consumption was measured using the gravimetric
method described in SAE J1321 [1]. Detachable fuel tanks installed on each truck were weighed before and after each lap to determine the fuel consumed. Fuel economy was also computed for the gravimetric method using distance determined from a global positioning system (GPS) receiver in the PEMS.
Fuel consumption and fuel economy were also measured using a SEMTECH-D™portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) installed onboard each truck. SEMTECH-D is manufactured by Sensors, Inc., and determines fuel consumption based on a carbon balance of measured emissions. Emissions measured and recorded include THC, NO, NO2, CO, CO2, and O2.
In addition, engine data from the vehicle’s diagnostic
port, weather conditions, and GPS data are all recorded on a real-time basis. Based on the emissions, speed and distance data computed the GPS, carbon balance fueleconomy was calculated using the method outlined in SAE Standard J1094a. [4]
 
Viscom or PIB is not the holy grail of fuel additives but can fractionally improve combustion in IC engines.

Regarding the Oronite Fuel Additive (fuel extender), this is a combination of amines (PEA) and PIB of Lower Molecular weight. It is added to fuel in ppb.

In the Viscom movie, one of the scenes shows these white pebbles moving into another machine. These are pebbles of solid PIB and are high molecular weight PIB. These pebbles have to be dissolved in a solvent to convert them to a liquid fuel additive.

The solvent has to be an n-octane, n-hexadecane or similar solvent.
 
Last edited:
I still have some Viscon left from the last batch available back in 2005-2006 IIRC. I bought it as it was said on Subaru forums to control engine knocking and I had issues with run-on in my boat. It did nothing for that and I didn't use it up.

What I did instead, was gas burning experiments and Viscon did improve gasoline burning with less smoke and less explosive burning. I didn't film Viscon, but I did film TCW3 and Viscon effect was very similar to TCW3. Lucas UCL also improved burning but did nothing for the dark smoke formation.

See for yourself.

gasoline:


TCW3:


Lukas:


BTW, Lucas is PIB, just the LMW.
PIB is also used in variety of oils, so some TCW3 use it already.

I posted several years ago that the same guy who patented HMW PIB as gas additive also patented LMW PIB and claims the same effects. Interestingly how Lucas can do nothing about it as they kept their PIB as a trade secret.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
Any independent empirical evidence that diesel fuel additives actually work?
Replies
10
Views
1K
urman
W
StarTron Diesel additive- compatibility to other additives
Replies
4
Views
662
Westwind
E
TC-W3 vs JASO FC/FD as fuel additive in a diesel engine
Replies
13
Views
648
thastinger
J
Fuel additive for PHEV
Replies
15
Views
2K
oil pan 4
F
Best fuel additive for a sitting vehicle?
Replies
8
Views
703
JHZR2
Back
Top