View Single Post
Old 04-13-2002, 10:23 AM   #7
jimberg
Registered Member
 
jimberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Rogers, MN
Posts: 2,089
Default

It's BS. You can tell by the way they try to sell it. They demonstrate the "science" on how it works with a couple expirements that are compelling, but when you think about what they actually demonstrated you realize the deception.

In one experiment, they have two 2-liter bottles connected to form what looks like an hour-glass with water in the bottom bottle. They flip it over and the water just flows really slowly with a lot of turbulence. Then he swirls the bottle to create a vortex and the water just flows effortlessly. They pronounce that the Tornado works the same way to increase airflow. The problem, however, is that the experiment only demonstrates that you need to allow air to replace the fluid being replaced for it to flow smoothly. Swirling the water creates a hole to allow this to happen.

The other experiment involves a clear plastic wind tunnel with a hole to act as an air inlet on the top and a fan on the bottom pulling air through the tunnel. A little wind vane is in the path of air flow and is just wiggling back and forth. They place the Tornado on the air inlet and then the wind vane starts spinning really fast. The problem here is that they are trying to leave you with the impression that the air is moving faster through the tunnel because of the Tornado. The reality, however, is that they only demonstrated the pressence of an air vortex. The blades on the wind vane didn't have any pitch so straight moving air wouldn't cause it to spin, but a vortex would.

The ad also compares the product with the same technology used in jet engines. This again was a stupid comparison. They only thing they have in common is the angled blades. The compression blades on a jet engine are turned by exhaust gases like in a turbo charger. They aren't just passively placed in the path of air.
__________________
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible
jimberg is offline   Reply With Quote