Test Results
Test Results
Aqua Green Fuel (Pty.)Ltd. (AGF).
Patent Pending no: 2009/03032
Making your vehicle's engine more efficient...
Test Results: Mercedes Actros 2640
Test period: 2009/08/17 to 2009/08/23
Test Description:
For this test AGF installed 6x reactors, each with its own power supply, on a Mercedes Actros 2640. The truck is still fully operational and actively used on a open groove cole mine, so we have access to its fuel usage history as well as the opportunity to run the truck under different conditions with and without the reactors activated.
Initial results:
The initial feedback from the owner was almost disturbingly good. The truck was driven back to the mine without any load. This was done just after installation prior to the official tests. On arrival the owner checked the history and found that this truck never, ever did better than 1.8km/l, and that was when it was new!! The new figures left us all uneasy. It looked too good to be true. The new figures approached 3.2km/l. Well, if we didn't believe it then who are we to think someone else would believe it. We speculated that the driver made the wrong notes, the owner was over optimistic or that some other error was made. We needed better results. So Gerrie Erasmus, our CEO decided to personally spend some time with our test truck.
The tests:
The test was started on 17 August 2009. The system was activated and a load was attached (30 tonne).
The first test ran for 2 days with reactors on. The truck ran for 682km and used 297 litre of diesel. This result of 2.296km/l confirmed that the reactors were doing their job.
The second test ran for 2 days with the reactors off. The distance was 679km and used 418.9 litre of diesel. This result of only 1.621km/l proved that the system was working.
But was this repeatable?
The 3rd test ran for 1.5 days with the reactor on again. The distance traveled was shorter at 440km but again the truck used less fuel (190.88 litre) resulting very close to the first result with a value of 2.305km/l.
The 4th and last test ran for 1.5 days with the reactor off. A similar distance of 438km was traveled and yet again the fuel usage was more (266.11 litre) resulting in a value of 1.646km/l
| Period | Kilometers | Litres | Consumption km/l | Save(Litres) | Diesel Price | Money Saved |
| 2 Days With AGF System | 682 | 297 | 2.296 | 121.9 | R6.53/l | R 796.00 (29.39%) |
| 2 Days Without AGF System | 679 | 418.9 | 1.621 | - | R6.53/l | |
| 1.5 days With AGF System | 440 | 190.88 | 2.305 | 75.23 | R6.53/l | R 491.25 (28.65%) |
| 1.5 days Without AGF System | 438 | 266.11 | 1.646 | - | ||
| Summary: With AGF System | 1122 | 487.88 | 2.300 | 197.13 | R6.53/l | R 1 287.25 (28.77% based on old cost) |
| Summary: Without AGF System | 1117 | 685.01 | 1.631 | - | R6.53/l |
Apologies to the high decimal accuracy listed as those with statistic background will know it is not really possible to obtain such values from just filling up the tank. However, these were the value provided to me as accurate as the people involved could obtain. I am confident that if they put in so much effort to try and as close to 0.01 litre accuracy that they did not add or subtract large values that could radically alter the outcome. Please note that AGF personnel did not measure these quantities. Only the client was involved and he wants to save money, not pad AGF figures.
Percentages.
Working out percentages is a highly perceptive and emotional affair. If the consumption was 1.6km/l and then changes to 2.2km/l then the calculation can be made in various ways.
1) One can take the new, divided by the old, times 100%. In this case it would result in (2.2/1.6)*100 = 137.5%. This means that you are getting 37.5% more.
2) One can take the old, divided by the new, times 100%. (1.6/2.2) * 100 = 72.72%. This means that the old consumption relative to the new consumption is 72.72%. Suddenly the difference is 27.28%. This gives you an indication of how much worse the old value is relative to the new one.
Now if you stretch the saving to 3.2km.l then the figures start to look interesting.
1) Suddenly the the percentage is (3.2/1.6)*100 = 200%. So you have an excess value of 100%. There is nothing wrong with this value, but normally people will claim this one because it looks good.
2) Now, (1.6/3.2)*100 = 50%. This means on a total of 3.2km/l the old value is 50%, thus you gained only 50% based on the new value. This is still the truth just looked at from another angle.
The problem is that these percentages confuse people, as simple as they may seem, and many times people miss the point. From the one direction the first percentage will just keep on looking better and the other will look worse. The easiest is to put some monetary value to it and then look at it again.
From our tests above it should be obvious that 487.88l of diesel costs R 3 185.85 while using the system. Without the system 685.01l costs R 4 473.12. So the client saved R 1 287.25. But (4473.12/3185.85)*100 = 140.41% gain, so you might be tempted to use 40.41% as the saving you are going to make. However, you need to use the less impressive 28.77% to project your new cost. Your new cost will be lower so you will take your saving of 28.77%, subtract that from 100% and get to 71.23%. Your new projected cost will now be 71.23% of your old cost of R 4 473.12 = +-R 3 186.
So to re-cap your projected cost is: 100% - (savings/old_cost)*100%
Or if you don't like to work with percentage just use the following fraction: 1-(savings/old_cost).
Take that fraction, multiply it with the the old_cost and project the new montly cost.
Savings, Savings.
Now, the client has a fleet of 500 trucks. I will take the liberty of generalizing the figures. He has a monthly fuel bill of R6 000 000. If he fits all his trucks and gets the same saving on each (generalizing) then his new monthly fuel bill will be R6 000 000 * 0.7123 = R4 273 800. This means that he will save R1 726 200 per month. At this saving the client can fit all his trucks and pay for the system, using the savings, in only about 6 months (remember the costing is heavily dependent on the configuration which cause varying costs). It also means that 1 year from now the client will have an additional R10 357 200 in the bank that would otherwise have gone up into smoke.
What does this mean for the environment?
At the current diesel price of R6.53 it means that one year from now the client would have avoided putting R20 714 400 worth of diesel into his trucks. That equates to 3 172 189 litres of diesel. This equates to roughly 2 696 361 kg of raw diesel fuel. Diesel's average formula is C12H26 which means that there on average 12 carbon per molecule which combines with (hopefully) 2 oxygen atoms to form CO2. (CO is even worse). Now I need to check my math again but it does appear that this system will save around 8 000 000 kg of CO2 in 1 year from one client alone. This equates to hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of carbon dioxide. I will have to calculate it again as the numbers on the calculator is crazy high. And this is just the savings from a single fleet.
Tax breaks for "going green"
Carbon credits, green certificates etc... There are many things happening at the moment. We expect great financial benefits for people and companies who can prove they are saving on emissions. This will equate to even more savings. At some stage you won't be able to afford not to save.
Real people with warm blood you can talk to.
Feel free to contact Gerrie at the email address below. You are also free to contact R-- -----, the person who owns the truck in the pictures, at 083 --- ----. The truck is used at the Ancercoal Mine in Clever, Witbank. Please don't bug Rob about any crap you can think of. If you have to you can call him to confirm the figures above. Sorry, but we have removed the name and number due to abuse. For anything else contact Gerrie.
Opportunities...
If you think you can market a product like this then please feel free to contact us.
Please send us an email to info@worldwater2fuel.com
Please send us an email to info@worldwater2fuel.com