This is absolutely true. If you use this with the tornado, 100mpg carb, super chip, magnets, and everything else that car manufacturer’s forget are good, then you will EASILY GET 1000 MPG. Simply amazes me how foolish people are to drive around in cars that only get 20mpg. Stop falling for the lies of the car companies and start falling for the lies of the fuel efficiency companies. Instead of using 10% of the power of your fuel and 100% of your brain, you can start using 100% of the power of your fuel and 10% of your brain.
ref
There is just a tiny bit of fact in their “science”: more finely atomized fuel will yield a little better fuel efficiency. The Bosch Company has an on-going research and development of a high pressure, finely atomizing, fuel injector. I think that I will wait until they bring that to market.
If you believe this crap, you’re a gullible idiot. Sorry, but it’s true.
Popular Mechanics did an article a couple years ago scientifically testing all sorts of miracle things. They found at best there was no difference (aside from a slightly lighter wallet); at worst, the test vehicle burst into flames. You can read the article here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html
Hold off on your purchase for now. Wait until the Nigerian oil minister sends you your $10 million check. Any day now.
Well, you would buy less gas if your car was reduced to a flaming heap…
BS. Plain and simple. Don’t waste your money.
I thought it was an interesting trick to show a B&S engine running on both gas and water on two separate carbs. Just a funky water injection set-up that does NOTHING for mileage or power. What a crock!
BTW, where was this PICC in the video? Neither engine used it. Did anyone else notice that? I repeat, what a crock.
Hee hee hee. Back in the 70’s when gas shot up to 50 cents a gallon, I put two cow magnets on my fuel line. Still got one of 'em today. They only cost $3.50 each and are great for picking up spilled nails etc. Never did a thing for mileage but great magnets.
I have acheived the same mileage increases in 3 vehicles–a 1990 Ford Aerostar, a 2003 Toyota 4Runner and a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander. Each of these vehicles has an indicator that gives the instantaneous miles per gallon. I have observed it on a straight stretch of level highway and then seen it indicate a dramatic increase in miles per gallon when I go downhill at the same speed. I didn’t have to buy this gas saving contraption to achieve the same results indicated in this test. I’m currently writing my state legislators to make all roads have a downhill slope so that I could have this great mileage all the time!
If it seems that way, it likely is.
If you have lots of money to throw around experimenting, be my guest.
Me? I can’t afford to.
Like the saying,"seeing is believing’, so when I actually see it installed and proven to me to be without a doubt, then I’ll consider, but I think I’ll be long dead and gone by then.
I already gave them my bank account info, so they should be transferring it today. 
Yes . . . a waste of time and money. Rocketman
I’m no physicist, but I AM a scientist…and anything as vague as “Using a magnetic and electrical reaction to break down the fuel molecules into their elemental state, the PICC creates a plasma, which burns super efficiently and cleanly!” isn’t going to convince me.
You can’t take one form of matter (liquid fuel) and turn it into plasma by breaking it into its “elemental state.” Breaking gasoline into its “elemental state” would leave you with carbon and hydrogen, neither of which can power your car in an internal combustion engine unless they are in molecular (read: NOT elemental) form as hydrocarbons, and neither of which can be turned into plasma for use in an automobile engine. Plasma is a form of matter that has been ionized with an electric charge to make it more conductive, and responsive to electromagnetic fields…breaking down fuel into an elemental form is just making hydrogen and carbon…by, say, burning it…
And, since plasma - like gas - has no definite form or volume, fuel injectors would not be able to meter it into the cylinders in a predictable way. It just doesn’t add up, at all…
I’ll bet that the seller of this device is not as scientifically-minded as you are. The concepts you mentioned are likely lost on him. But the idea of electrolysis to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen is legitimate. The engine is probably mot set up to oxidize hydrogen, though. I’m not sure how the engine will hold up to long-term use if the quantity of hydrogen burned is significant. And if the amount of hydrogen is not significant, the effect can’t be significant either.