STAR LETTER

Dear Sir,

I fitted a broquet (four pellet gauze) catayst in the fuel tank of my 1954 triumph 650cc motorcycle way back in 1996, immediately before setting of on a journey of 150 miles. The bike ran smoother, and delivered power more eagerly than the it had the previous day.

I wondered if it might be the weather (rain); my imagination (vivid) or indeed the effects of the catalyst.

Time and daily mileage passed and in due course the cylinder head was removed. There were virtualy no carbon deposits, which was a complete surprise; and the valve seats were in better shape than experience had taught me to anticipate (I had ridden this same bike over a 15 year period and stripped the motor a number of times)

Perhaps this was the efect of the catalyst? It certainly wasn't because the carburetion was spot-on; for some unfathomable reason I was using an excessivley rich carburettor main jet of 270, rather than the more sensible 220, or even 210.

Years passed, the bike gave way to a car. I put the same catalyst in the fuel tank of a 2CV Citroen. The economy improved; performance was impressive (75mph sustained cruising at full throttle and a top-whack in second gear of 45mph) despite the high mileage of the engine-over 100,000 miles.

The inevitable conclusion? That the broquet catalyst is indeed a good bit of kit, and worth every penny.

Sub-atomic effects isn't my scene, but why shouldn't the presence of a very specific substance have a beneficial effect on the on the behaviour of another substance in it's vicinity?

John Wynn