ezero1 device (CGON)

[andythechief]

Very similar info as my previous link:

 

http://revolution-green.com/hho-injection-diesels-truth/

 

Looks like we just need to go talk to some tractor pullers!

[Ootohere]

Mark Dansie,  Awesome, everything is just awesome. Everyone must make a fortune with selling this stuff, or just with promoting new stuff.

 

Edited 23 August, 2018 by Offski

[Breezy_Pete]

47 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Can't refind the info on ES..google foo is coming up nada...& I know it was on ES website.

 

my original quote on pg2:-

""I already linked to Emission Analytics who have tested the device....also Eddie Stobart have trialled the device and noted 3%-7% better MPG & 25% to 50% reduction in adblue usage with the device...."""

 

Slightly improved MPG but up to 50% reduction in AdBlue usage...which is the main point of the device...to reduce emissions....& you can do this by cleaning up the combustion process, or use more expensive better quality fuels...or flue gas wash the after the combustion process (ie cats)….

 

BTW Emissions Analytics are a totally different company & they are the ones who have come up with the PEMS testing:-

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-management/case-studies/industry-profiles/emissions-analytics-living-in-the-real-world-of-emissions

 

No source means probably made up, in my opinion.

 

[mac11irl]

22 minutes ago, Wino said:

No source means probably made up, in my opinion.

 

Or Stobarts did try it, got bogall medium term gain, so quietly advised the company to stop using their name...

[fabdavrav]

22 minutes ago, Wino said:

No source means probably made up, in my opinion.

 

 

So you are saying that I was lying then???

 

Sorry I quoted & always do quote directly from the source where the facts came from...just I can't refind it on ES website...

 

[Breezy_Pete]

No mate, not you. I expect some PR person at Stobarts or Cgone made it up.

[fabdavrav]

1 hour ago, Aspman said:

 

Ah indeed, it was Applied Emissions not Emissions Analytics

 

correct & there is a VAST difference between the two companies...

 

Emissions Analytics are behind the PEMS testing & equipment & the EQUA testing results....

 

& their results are here in a quote:-

 

"It was independently tested by experts at Emissions Analytics whose ‘real world’ performance tests use a portable device, which measures emissions coming out of the exhaust pipe while cars are driven. For urban driving, the testing showed reductions of 91.3 per cent in particulates or ‘soot’, and a halving of nitrous oxides (47.9 per cent reduction in NOx and a 50.6 per cent reduction in NO2)."

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4812942/Brian-Sheard-invents-CGON-cut-motorists-fuel-bills.html

 

Again what Ortho hydrogen does & others in the field have said..its an emissions cleaner/reducer...not a "free energy device"...

Edited 23 August, 2018 by fabdavrav

[Ootohere]

I never will understand why Emissions Analytics have all the gear, more than an idea, employees that were Haymarket Media Group Employees, knew all the scores on the doors on Vehicle Emissions and yet if they blew the whistle on the VW Group it was a silent whistle.

 

How come they were telling the DVSA and before that VOSA / DfT , Transport Ministers and Civil Servants about 'stuff' and stuff all was being done until 

the sharn hit the fan late 2015.

 

 

aqc_written_evidence_vol2_.pdf

Government Clears Manufacturers Of Emissions Cheating As New Nox Index Is Launched _ Activa Contracts.mhtml

Edited 23 August, 2018 by Offski

[Breezy_Pete]

The Emissions Analytics results were what the ASA ruled on though, weren't they?

Ortho hydrogen . Just call it magic hydrogen and be done with it.

[CWARD]

Quote

The ASA considered consumers would interpret the claims to mean that, by using the product, all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would experience a noticeable increase in efficiency, meaning more miles per litre of fuel, and reduction in engine emissions, with a reasonable proportion achieving the maximum 25% or 80% respectively. We therefore considered CGON needed to hold adequate evidence that showed that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would achieve a noticeable improvement, with a reasonable proportion achieving the maximum.

 

We noted that, of the test results CGON had supplied, only one had assessed fuel efficiency. Although the results of that test reported an increased miles per gallon figure of 5.2% on the urban cycle and 7% at 50 mph and 70 mph, and stated that the test had been repeated four to five times, it had nevertheless been conducted on one vehicle only – a Jaguar – and the reported improvement was considerably less than the one claimed in the ad. The remaining evidence CGON had supplied for increased fuel efficiency consisted of testimonials from users of the device who reported an increase in their vehicles’ mpg figure. However, we considered evidence for the claim that engine efficiency of all or most vehicles increased when using the device needed to include controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles to show that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by petrol or diesel engines would see this improvement, and that the improvement was due to the device. We considered that testing of a single vehicle and testimonial evidence from users did not constitute adequate evidence.

 

To support the claim that the device reduced vehicle emissions, part of the evidence CGON had supplied consisted of certificates of the kind issued in MOT tests for six vehicles, two with diesel and four with petrol engines, before and after fitting the device. The certificates reported that emission levels of the vehicles were lower after the device was fitted. However, while we acknowledged that the MOT was designed to establish whether a vehicle’s emission levels complied for the purposes of the MOT, we nevertheless considered that the test was not designed to meet the needs of the controlled testing that would be required to establish whether a reduction in emission levels was due to the use of the device or to some other factor.

 

Tests on three other vehicles had been undertaken by Emissions Analytics using a portable measurement system attached to the vehicles’ exhaust pipes. The details of the testing said it had been undertaken in urban cycles of 50 mph and 70 mph; that it had been repeated; and that it showed a reduction in vehicle emissions in each case. However, there had been some significant variations between vehicles and between cycles. We considered that evidence that engine emissions of all or most vehicles had been reduced when using the device needed to include controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles that showed that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by petrol or diesel engines would see this improvement, and that the improvement was due to the device. We considered that testing of a limited range of vehicles, which had itself shown variations between vehicles and between cycles, and testimonial evidence from users was not sufficient.

 

We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and that the ad was misleading.

 

[Ootohere]

As long as there is Social Media and Youtube you can just saying what you like, the ASA are not going to stop that happening.

 

Edited 23 August, 2018 by Offski

[Breezy_Pete]

7 minutes ago, Offski said:

As long as there is Social Media and Youtube you can just saying what you like, the ASA are not going to stop that happening.

 

 

They'll be legally in breach of the ASA ruling until they remove all such material, won't they?

[Ootohere]

 

[fabdavrav]

42 minutes ago, CWARD said:

he ASA considered consumers would interpret the claims to mean that, by using the product, all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would experience a noticeable increase in efficiency, meaning more miles per litre of fuel, and reduction in engine emissions, with a reasonable proportion achieving the maximum 25% or 80% respectively. We therefore considered CGON needed to hold adequate evidence that showed that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by a petrol or diesel engine would achieve a noticeable improvement, with a reasonable proportion achieving the maximum.

 

We noted that, of the test results CGON had supplied, only one had assessed fuel efficiency. Although the results of that test reported an increased miles per gallon figure of 5.2% on the urban cycle and 7% at 50 mph and 70 mph, and stated that the test had been repeated four to five times, it had nevertheless been conducted on one vehicle only – a Jaguar – and the reported improvement was considerably less than the one claimed in the ad. The remaining evidence CGON had supplied for increased fuel efficiency consisted of testimonials from users of the device who reported an increase in their vehicles’ mpg figure. However, we considered evidence for the claim that engine efficiency of all or most vehicles increased when using the device needed to include controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles to show that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by petrol or diesel engines would see this improvement, and that the improvement was due to the device. We considered that testing of a single vehicle and testimonial evidence from users did not constitute adequate evidence.

 

To support the claim that the device reduced vehicle emissions, part of the evidence CGON had supplied consisted of certificates of the kind issued in MOT tests for six vehicles, two with diesel and four with petrol engines, before and after fitting the device. The certificates reported that emission levels of the vehicles were lower after the device was fitted. However, while we acknowledged that the MOT was designed to establish whether a vehicle’s emission levels complied for the purposes of the MOT, we nevertheless considered that the test was not designed to meet the needs of the controlled testing that would be required to establish whether a reduction in emission levels was due to the use of the device or to some other factor.

 

Tests on three other vehicles had been undertaken by Emissions Analytics using a portable measurement system attached to the vehicles’ exhaust pipes. The details of the testing said it had been undertaken in urban cycles of 50 mph and 70 mph; that it had been repeated; and that it showed a reduction in vehicle emissions in each case. However, there had been some significant variations between vehicles and between cycles. We considered that evidence that engine emissions of all or most vehicles had been reduced when using the device needed to include controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles that showed that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by petrol or diesel engines would see this improvement, and that the improvement was due to the device. We considered that testing of a limited range of vehicles, which had itself shown variations between vehicles and between cycles, and testimonial evidence from users was not sufficient.

 

We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and that the ad was misleading.

 

Bolded certain points;-

 

I read that when it came out.....

 

Basically they did not dispute the actual test results......just the fact that as it was such a limited number of cars used & "MOT test results before & after don't count" (& yet a MOT emission test fail is a legal reson to ban a car from the road?).....etc etc..

 

That the average Joe Bloggs might think that the figures stated would apply to their car...& that because such a limited number was tested that the company Cgon can't guarantee that their device would produce those results in all cars...

 

 

A couple of points which should be considered when applying this ruling in which the ASA did a knee jerk "legalese technically correct" judgment...

 

Point 1:- How many people regularly complain in the press that their cars does not get the quoted MPG???...IN fact how many cars have been proven in real world to not get anywhere near this??...Have the ASA done the car manufactures over this in the past???..

 

Point 2:- How many tuners/remap companies who state "up to XX BHP & NM torque & improved emissions"...& how many cars have they tested it on???......When I looked for my car when they were first advertising (& these are big companies)…they could only produce dyno results on ONE car....which was not my car but a Seat version with a DSG box......so again "limited number"....not only that no proper "emissions testing"....why don't the ASA have a go at them...as virtually most of these remaps etc are only developed on one engine of that type before they are advertised as being for all version (eg other gearboxes, & brands)

 

 

I think the ASA ruling was unfair as it should also apply to many other produces...also all that make-up bs…ads on TV..."92% of women said it reduced fine lines"....small print on bottom of screen stating "of a sample of 48 women"....yep limited number again....

[Ootohere]

Yes the ASA 'got' AUDI on their advertising for not pointing out their figures were not 'real world',  so EU Test figures.

Because EU test figures are not real world.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx 

 

 

Watchdog order on Audi fuel figures - AOL.mhtml

Edited 23 August, 2018 by Offski

[CWARD]

2 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

However, there had been some significant variations between vehicles and between cycles. We considered that evidence that engine emissions of all or most vehicles had been reduced when using the device needed to include controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles that showed that, under normal driving conditions, all or most vehicles powered by petrol or diesel engines would see this improvement, and that the improvement was due to the device.

 

Seems very clear to me that the testing was insufficient and there had been significant variations  between cycles on those vehicles tested. I'm sure you will tell me black is white to suit your argument again. 

 

Have they repeated these tests to ensure the testing isn't so selective as prescribed in the summary by the ASA or they still using the original tests which are misleading?

5 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

controlled testing of a sufficiently wide range of vehicles that showed that, under normal driving conditions

 

[fabdavrav]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

Seems very clear to me that the testing was insufficient and there had been significant variations  between cycles on those vehicles tested. I'm sure you will tell me black is white to suit your argument again. 

 

Have they repeated these tests to ensure the testing isn't so selective as prescribed in the summary by the ASA or they still using the original tests which are misleading?

 

 

I agree its a limited number of cars...but then apply that same logic/ruling to the remap companies etc as when they make for a car/engine & state "XX BHP & torque increase & improved emission"....& in realty they only test on one car with that engine....& then state it suitable for all versions of that engine....

 

 

Ruling was correct "legalese technical judgement" as I stated….just other produces etc that people on this forum quite happily spend £500-£1000 on fall under that same ASA ruling...yet nothing is done & there are no long threads like this....

[Gibx33]

11 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Bolded certain points;-

 

I read that when it came out.....

 

Basically they did not dispute the actual test results......just the fact that as it was such a limited number of cars used & "MOT test results before & after don't count" (& yet a MOT emission test fail is a legal reson to ban a car from the road?).....etc etc..

 

That the average Joe Bloggs might think that the figures stated would apply to their car...& that because such a limited number was tested that the company Cgon can't guarantee that their device would produce those results in all cars...

 

 

A couple of points which should be considered when applying this ruling in which the ASA did a knee jerk "legalese technically correct" judgment...

 

Point 1:- How many people regularly complain in the press that their cars does not get the quoted MPG???...IN fact how many cars have been proven in real world to not get anywhere near this??...Have the ASA done the car manufactures over this in the past???..

 

Point 2:- How many tuners/remap companies who state "up to XX BHP & NM torque & improved emissions"...& how many cars have they tested it on???......When I looked for my car when they were first advertising (& these are big companies)…they could only produce dyno results on ONE car....which was not my car but a Seat version with a DSG box......so again "limited number"....not only that no proper "emissions testing"....why don't the ASA have a go at them...as virtually most of these remaps etc are only developed on one engine of that type before they are advertised as being for all version (eg other gearboxes, & brands)

 

 

I think the ASA ruling was unfair as it should also apply to many other produces...also all that make-up bs…ads on TV..."92% of women said it reduced fine lines"....small print on bottom of screen stating "of a sample of 48 women"....yep limited number again....

That was just the one car I believe there have been 4 cars 1 was tested twice a year between tests. As you can see from the above the tech works and the nature of the RDE testing does not show real everyday figures. Regarding manufactures advertised figures there is a discrepancy of 20-22% less advertised MPG when tested with PEMS real road. Google it people Emission Analytics website. The Jaguar had only 1200 miles on the clock and it cost over a £100,000,000 to develop the engine AdBlue by the way...

[CWARD]

3 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

I agree its a limited number of cars...but then apply that same logic/ruling to the remap companies etc as when they make for a car/engine & state "XX BHP & torque increase & improved emission"....& in realty they only test on one car with that engine....& then state it suitable for all versions of that engine....

 

 

Ruling was correct "legalese technical judgement" as I stated….just other produces etc that people on this forum quite happily spend £500-£1000 on fall under that same ASA ruling...yet nothing is done & there are no long threads like this....

 

We are not talking about other companies but Cgon and their claims. They no longer make reference to Emissions Analytics test on their website now just customer feedback and MOT gas testing which does not prove the device works. A diesel soot test can be failed then passed later by just giving it an Italian tune up. VCA test vehicle emissions for type approval and they don't just nip down to the local MOT testing station as more controls are required along with calibrating machines.

 

Quote

Hydrogen is sucked into the engine through the air intake, along with your regular fuel/air mixture.

The resulting Hydrogen-Fuel-Air mixture burns faster and more completely than your ordinary fuel-air mixture.

Nearly all the particulates and polluting gases are burnt off, reducing emissions^‡.

 

^† Based on feedback from our customers with units fitted on their vehicles, driving in the real world 
^‡ Based on the VOSA MOT Approved emissions test

 

[fabdavrav]

5 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

We are not talking about other companies but Cgon and their claims. 

 

 

 

Yep...

 

But when slinging stones its best not to live in a glass house...…..like I said that ASA ruling can equally apply to quite a few claims on "limited numbers of cars" made by tuning & remap companies...

 

.& people on this forum & other spend £££ on these magic boxes (if piggy back)...or remaps...….& some swear that it works & they have dyno results (on dynos that are not independently certified or calibrated)….& many other who have bought these magic black boxes & ended up with blown motors & invalid warranties…..

 

 

Sling mud at Cgon as much as you like...but then be fair & sling it at the other companies as well.....otherwise that's being a hypocrite...

 

 

[Rustynuts]

17 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Yep...

 

But when slinging stones its best not to live in a glass house...…..like I said that ASA ruling can equally apply to quite a few claims on "limited numbers of cars" made by tuning & remap companies...

 

 

 

But it doesn't, does it. Just because you say it can, doesn't mean that it does.

 

Look at any advertising on the telly and you can pick holes in it. Sparkling white teeth when brushed with a certain toothpaste for only a couple of weeks, dishes washed in a certain washing up liquid miraculously clean after only a quick dip in dirty dishwater, "Barry Scott" and his amazing cleaning product which works so well it cleans your keys as well, "Buy this kitchen for only £3995" but read the small print at the bottom of the screen when they say this. All adverts are made to entice the customer into buying, but they all have a get out clause somewhere in the small print or the quickly garbled statement at the end of the advert.

Except cgon, that is, who just made stuff up and got caught out by the ASA.

[fabdavrav]

45 minutes ago, Rustynuts said:

 

But it doesn't, does it. Just because you say it can, doesn't mean that it does.

 

Look at any advertising on the telly and you can pick holes in it. Sparkling white teeth when brushed with a certain toothpaste for only a couple of weeks, dishes washed in a certain washing up liquid miraculously clean after only a quick dip in dirty dishwater, "Barry Scott" and his amazing cleaning product which works so well it cleans your keys as well, "Buy this kitchen for only £3995" but read the small print at the bottom of the screen when they say this. All adverts are made to entice the customer into buying, but they all have a get out clause somewhere in the small print or the quickly garbled statement at the end of the advert.

Except cgon, that is, who just made stuff up and got caught out by the ASA.

 

 

Cgon made the mistake of not including the small print/disclaimers (eg:- we've only tested this on a limited number of cars).....basically naïve…….nothing more, nothing less...... than what you just mentioned & what I had re-remaps/tuners etc....

 

 

its the whole "tear them to shreds" attitude on this forum which is despicable & does NOT show this forum in a good light....especially when other websites are linking & quoting this thread!!!

Edited 23 August, 2018 by fabdavrav

[andythechief]

There does seem to be a rather green outlook to any success by invention.

 

I still can’t believe the empirical proof of success or failure is so elusive.

[Rustynuts]

4 minutes ago, andythechief said:

There does seem to be a rather green outlook to any success by invention.

 

I still can’t believe the empirical proof of success or failure is so elusive.

Exactly.

It would be ever so easy for cgon to prove their products worth and success at doing what they say it can do. So why don't they? Instead they spend many months and man hours defending their failure to address the issue of not testing it in an unbiased manner and simply keep on stating "Honest, it does work!"

 

It's not my place (nor in fact is it anyones) to disprove the magical mystery of this strangely unique formulation of hydrogen and delivery system which has eluded the multi billion pound investment of all major motor manufacturers in a quest for better fuel economy and lower emissions. Yet strangely, some rather disreputable and anonymous characters have managed to defy the laws of physics and created the Holy Grail which has eluded VW, Toyota, Hyundai, Mercedes, Fiat Chrysler etc. and cannot or will not prove its worth beyond (once again) simply stating "It DOES work, honest."

 

So if it works why haven't we seen the proof which would be so easily provided? That would shut everyone up (me included and I'd be happy to stand up and say I was wrong and send a cheque off to them for my box of tricks and bottle of bull sperm).

 

But how long have they been playing the "It won't be long now, honest!" card? I suspect they just need to find someone willing to tell them what they want so that they can publish their evidence to the waiting world. How could they do this I wonder? Maybe they could set up their own company and test the device. Okay, so there's going to have to be some degree of separation between the two companies so it appears as though it's legit, so how about one of the directors quits and starts the company up? With a bit of luck no one will notice...

[Breezy_Pete]

^ Post of the week in this thread.