 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006Magnets, apple corers and other fuel saving devices
Popular Mechanics (for years one of the worst ways to spend a few bucks on a magazine) must have some new management. There are actually some articles that are worth reading , rather than the magazine just being a buyers look at new products. Anyway, they did dyno testing in Houston on several of the 'wonder' products including the ubiquitous magnetic devices, the Tornado apple corer and fuel saver, vapor induction, etc and as we all might have suspected, none of these idiots delights did anything positive. Total waste of money. Maybe if we urged them, they would actually test oil and air filters and give a more or less scientific opinion. On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:10:47 +0000, HLS wrote: > Popular Mechanics (for years one of the worst ways to spend a few bucks on a > magazine) must [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anyway, they did dyno testing in Houston on several of the 'wonder' products Could you please tell us the issue, volume, page number and some more info on the 'Popular Mechanics' (ISSN would be nice too) about where to find that article? thanks, shakiro > including the > ubiquitous magnetic devices, the Tornado apple corer and fuel saver, vapor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > give a more or less scientific > opinion. > Could you please tell us the issue, volume, page number and some > more info on the 'Popular Mechanics' (ISSN would be nice too) > about where to find that article? > > thanks, > shakiro This is the September, 2005, copy, Shakiro. ISSN 0032-4558 The story, 'Looking for Miracles', starts on page 104. Apparently the work was performed at Universal Technical Institute in Houston, and the particular items tested are: Fuel Saver/Fuel Optimiser (magnetic crappola, $20-22) Intake Twister (Cheap Ebay version of Tornado Fuel Saver, $20) Tornado Fuel Saver (Expensive version of an apple corer, $70) Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver (B&G Electronics, $80) Fuel Atomizer 2000 (Wyoming Instruments.com, ca $200) AquaTune (Aquatune.com, ca $399) > Tornado Fuel Saver (Expensive version of an apple corer, $70) I would love to see the results of a red delicious getting sucked into the intake of this test vehicle. Toyota MDT in MO This reminds me to get my onion blossomer dynoed... > > Tornado Fuel Saver (Expensive version of an apple corer, $70) > > I would love to see the results of a red delicious getting sucked into > the intake of this test vehicle. You should've been over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler early last week. Some ignorant dipshit calling himself "Whoever" was arguing that restricted air filters don't reduce fuel economy. He dug himself a hole most of the way to China, making all kinds of hilarious claims regarding having formerly designed EFI system, talking about how the O2 sensor controls the fuel injectors' pulsewidth during open-loop operation, etc. > You should've been over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler early last week. Some > ignorant dipshit calling himself "Whoever" was arguing that restricted air > filters don't reduce fuel economy. He dug himself a hole most of the way > to China, making all kinds of hilarious claims regarding having formerly > designed EFI system, talking about how the O2 sensor controls the fuel > injectors' pulsewidth during open-loop operation, etc. I don't know if there's a joke hidden in your statement, :) but yeah, I replied to him as well. I tried to explain what I think he was missing in his argument. Maybe he worked for Ford in their EEC III division. My favorite poster this week "*" interjected incorrect info into a P/S system discussion, then said that so many people in NGs don't know what they are talking about that he now choses to 'mess with them' 'cause it's fun. Toyota MDT in MO >You should've been over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler early last week. Some >ignorant dipshit calling himself "Whoever" was arguing that restricted air >filters don't reduce fuel economy. He dug himself a hole most of the way >to China, making all kinds of hilarious claims regarding having formerly >designed EFI system, talking about how the O2 sensor controls the fuel >injectors' pulsewidth during open-loop operation, etc. Sounds feasible to me.. . The engine management system wouldn't know the difference between an iccompletely-opened throttle and a clogged aire filter. Less incoming air mass = less fuel injected to achieve the optimum results at the O2 sensors. I don't think it would save much fuel though, since the same amount of energy would have to be created to accelerate and maintain speed. At less than WOT, the driver would simply depress the pedal a bit more to compensate. More likely: The system would throw a fault because the air mass wouldn't match what was expected for the throttle position. -- Email reply: please remove one letter from each side of "@" Spammers are Scammers. Exterminate them. >You should've been over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler early last week. Some >ignorant dipshit calling himself "Whoever" was arguing that restricted air >filters don't reduce fuel economy. He dug himself a hole most of the way >to China, making all kinds of hilarious claims regarding having formerly >designed EFI system, talking about how the O2 sensor controls the fuel >injectors' pulsewidth during open-loop operation, etc. I read you original "discussions" and then did some more research. Neither the TPM or the MAF have full control over fuel flow. Although, per this article:http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/jan97/techtotech.htm the TPS has less influence than the MAF.. I suspect this may vary between systems.. -- Email reply: please remove one letter from each side of "@" Spammers are Scammers. Exterminate them. > >You should've been over on rec.autos.makers.chrysler early last week. Some > >ignorant dipshit calling himself "Whoever" was arguing that restricted air [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the TPS has less influence than the MAF.. > I suspect this may vary between systems.. Agreed, except what is a TPM? :) I describe sensor importance this way: MAF is the big dog, TPS input is very important, coolant temp very important though not a quick response input like the previous two, and the O2 sensor(s) provide feedback so the ECM can determine which output values to dictate by use of a programmed data table. Toyota MDT in MO > > Could you please tell us the issue, volume, page number and some > > more info on the 'Popular Mechanics' (ISSN would be nice too) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Fuel Atomizer 2000 (Wyoming Instruments.com, ca $200) > AquaTune (Aquatune.com, ca $399) I liked the engine fire they had because of the B&G Ionizer. Looking at the picture it appears to be some cheap wire with wire nuts every few inches covered with plastic dip coating. Did you notice the HP drop on just about every device as well. That Fuel atomizer looks neat, kind of like a small still attached to the engine....And the Aqua Tune hype "Aqua Tune is like no other water injection system in that it is, in actuality, a fuel cell hydrogen processor> It produces hydrogen rich bubbles before being introduced into the engine draft" I have to agree with PM when they ask anyone to explain how it works. It produces hydrogen rich > bubbles before being introduced into the engine draft" I have to agree > with PM when they ask anyone to explain how it works. Hundred percent agree. Many scam artists in a lot of fields use enough scientific buzzwords to impress and amaze the uneducated. There ought to be a law... > It produces hydrogen rich > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scientific buzzwords to > impress and amaze the uneducated. There ought to be a law... One of the biggest myths uses the fact that only about 1/3 of the energy in the fuel goes into producing useful work propelling the car. There is a false believe that this means only 1/3 of the fuel is burned- the rest goes out the tailpipe as raw gasoline. This is, of course, not true- almost all the fuel is burned. Another part of the myth is that the fuel does not vaporize well. So many of the gadgets perport to help vaporize the fuel. Others claim to "energize" the fuel so that it burns more efficiently. Again, in modern engine the fuel burns fine enough- it is other, almost unavoidable losses that are the problem, and no easy solution to these problems exist. Only solutions- hard- are to greatly increase the operating temp of engine, and make long stroke, slow turning engines, which are big and heavy, and while a bit more fuel efficient, raise the horsepower-needed requirement (self-defeating, of course). Only solutions- hard- are to greatly > increase the operating temp of engine, and make long stroke, slow > turning engines, which are big and heavy, and while a bit more fuel > efficient, raise the horsepower-needed requirement (self-defeating, of > course). Increasing the efficiency of fuel burned is of course the goal. I did some calculations recently taking the thermal equivalent of mechanical horsepower, and relating it to heat content of gasoline per unit time. (I know that theory and practice here diverge a bit, but for a given horsepower generation there is a direct relationship to fuel burned per unit time) One horsepower is 0.7547 kiloJoules per second. Heat energy to be derived from gasoline is about 50 kiloJoules per gram. If you drive 70 miles in one hour, and use 1 gram per second, that is 3600 grams, or approximately one US gallon (hence 70 miles per gallon). Backing everything up, this would have generated 67 thermal horsepower at 100% conversion efficiency. All things considered, to attain 25-30 mpg on some of todays cars is a pretty decent feat, considering the above ultimate limitations. > All things considered, to attain 25-30 mpg on some of todays cars is a > pretty decent feat, considering > the above ultimate limitations. Indeed. Present auto engines considerably exceed the efficiency my old thermodynamics prof said was the maximum a car engine would ever reach. There is still a ways to go, but the easy fixes are already being used, and it will be pretty hard to go much higher. If we can get very high speed feedback control of injection, I see the direct cylinder injection possibly allowing a bit higher CR in something like a pseudo-Diesel cycle. [snip> > Indeed. Present auto engines considerably exceed the efficiency my old > thermodynamics prof said was the maximum a car engine would ever reach. Huh? I mean... was he talking about the maximum theoretical thermodynamic efficiency, or about how far up to that maximum the efficiency in his opinion would be able to go? shakiro [snip> > [snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [snip> > [snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > shakiro I am interested also. You may all remember that some 40-50 years ago, engineers calculated that a 'car' would never be able to exceed 140 mph in the quarter mile. So much for that. I remember professors talking in terms of 25-35% efficiency for an IC engine, I believe. As I mentioned in my original post, 'theory and practice tend to diverge'. Thermal efficiency (or thermodynamic efficiency) is probably still not so very great, but has probably improved since those days. Transmissions, engines, etc combine to give reasonable speed and acceleration (with minimized losses) without usually coming anywhere close to the published maximum horsepower specifications (which are often bogus to begin with). I think this is the most significant factor behind the good mileage we get now. Smoky Yunick worked on adiabatic engines as a consultant during his 'retirement' and made considerable headway. We are closer to being able to build such high temperature engines today than ever before. Lubricants can be made that will hold up near 200C, and metallurgy/ceramics can run in that range and much higher easily enough. To go significantly higher, organic lubricants may not be able to hold the mark....at least, not yet. Eutectic fluids might do it now. Interesting possibilities, anyway. mile. So much for that. > I remember professors talking in terms of 25-35% efficiency for an IC > engine, I believe. This prof figured 30% would be about absolute max. My understand that present car engines are at least 35% max, maybe a point or so higher, even. 'course, I have heard that industrial diesels are in the high 40s, and steam turbines near 50%. That figure for car engines is best efficiency, at optimum load and rpm. Average over a real urban driving cycle is of course much less. > [snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [snip> The later. He felt we had perfected it. This was before higher octane fuels, higher temp thermostats, and the improved oils and sealed, pressurized systems that allowed the later. > It produces hydrogen rich >> bubbles before being introduced into the engine draft" I have to agree >> with PM when they ask anyone to explain how it works. >Hundred percent agree. Many scam artists in a lot of fields use enough >scientific buzzwords to >impress and amaze the uneducated. There ought to be a law... That people be educated? > >Hundred percent agree. Many scam artists in a lot of fields use enough > >scientific buzzwords to > >impress and amaze the uneducated. There ought to be a law... > > That people be educated? Maybe that is reaching a little far, Ryan ;>). On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:15:26 +0000, HLS wrote: I got it, thanks a lot! shakiro >> Could you please tell us the issue, volume, page number and some >> more info on the 'Popular Mechanics' (ISSN would be nice too) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Fuel Atomizer 2000 (Wyoming Instruments.com, ca $200) > AquaTune (Aquatune.com, ca $399) > Popular Mechanics (for years one of the worst ways to spend a few bucks on a > magazine) must [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anything positive. Total > waste of money. At one time didn't PM run advertisements for some of these fuel extenders and other miracle products? That is a useful article, although for most of us it proves the obvious. I only hope the crowd that would be taken in by such snake oil pitches would also read PM. > Maybe if we urged them, they would actually test oil and air filters and > give a more or less scientific > opinion. > At one time didn't PM run advertisements for some of these fuel > extenders and other miracle products? > > That is a useful article, although for most of us it proves the > obvious. I only hope the crowd that would be taken in by such snake > oil pitches would also read PM. PM ran a bunch of snakeoil ads of all types. I noticed that in this issue the classified ad section in the back of the magazine was very very small. I hope this is a trend toward a quality magazine, since the recent years of both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics have been worthless. I cannot understand why no one has filed suit against these people, since it is clear they are bilking the public, the products are worthless, and the claims are false. > I cannot understand why no one has filed suit against these people, > since it is clear they are bilking the public, the products are worthless, > and the claims are false. I dont mean PM or PS. I mean the purveyors of worthless mileage gadgets. Sorry for the change in the line of thought. It used to be that in order to get a patent on something you had to provide a working model and be able to prove any claims. Even then many patents were issued for devices that clearly didn't work as advertised. I don't understand why major auto supply companies are willing to trash their own reputations by selling such garbage. I read about AquaTune, among others. This one seems to be an expensive water injection system. I think it is well proven that water injection does increase horsepower. Does that correlate to increased mileage? If so, then how much water per gallon of gas would be optimum, and how much increase in mileage could realistically be expected? I just noticed an ad at the top of this page for EnviroMax fuel catalyst. Has CarKB satisfied themselves that this product works before allowing it to be advertised on their site? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.