 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / August 200710 to 25% better MPG, with 2 or 3 ounces of Acetone per 10 gals of gas
Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. Acetone in Fuels: Significantly Improved Mileage: This article about acetone (CH3COCH3) probably draws conclusions that Big Oil and the American Car Manufacturers and others do NOT want you to know. They suffer from unlimited corporate GREED. They want bad mileage. The worse, the better as far as they are concerned. Acetone is a vaporization additive rather than a fuel additive per se. It is successful in very tiny amounts from about one part per 5000 to one part per 500. Mileage seems to taper off while HC emissions actually are greatly reduced with too much acetone. The peak gain in mileage comes between .03 of one-percent and .20 of one-percent acetone, depending on the actual vehicle which may be running gasoline or diesel. Note .781 cc per liter or .78 parts per 1000 or one part per 1280 are the same as one ounce per 10 gallons. Acetone operates on the unburned portion of the fuel to gain added vaporization and improved combustion efficiency. above was excerpted from: http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness monster. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. Maybe you work for an oil company. Scientific testing indicates that it works: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive >Maybe you work for an oil company. >Scientific testing indicates that it works: Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want to believe in it. Heat energy is what drives a motor and acetone is not going to increase the heat content of fuel 10 to 25% to allow it to produce more power. I suspect that some that claimed to have benifited from it is because it is a power solvent and it cleaned out their fuel system so it worked better (so would a bottle of fuel system cleaner) and they believed it was the magic of acetone. You are far more likely to gain 5 or 10% more MPG with higher octane fuel in a modern engine than with any snake oil like acetone. A modern gas engine is about 30% efficent (give or take) at best and there is about 50 HP in a gallon of 100% gas which mean best case is maybe about 16 HP hours at fly wheel for each gallon of fuel burned. No snake oil is going to change this but a fuel octane too low can reduce efficency so less power is captured from fuel. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want >to believe in it. There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> >>>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> The folks who think that such things as magnets and additives (which the big bad auto manufacturers and oil companies buy out to keep the status quo) are legit are probably prone to believe that you can drive from New York to Florida by simply taking off the hand brake and steer, because if you look at a map, it's all DOWNHILL. > >>>Maybe you work for an oil company. > >>>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Florida by simply taking off the hand brake and steer, because if you look > at a map, it's all DOWNHILL. But this is true I've done it. Ok I didn't make it all the way. I came to a stop right in front of a gas station, coincidence? I think not. Obviously big oil is putting up invisible barriers to stop cars from coasting so they can sell more of their bloody oil. I'm working a special device that will override these invisible barriers. If you are interested in investing in this once in a lifetime opportunity just send me your bank account number along with social security number and home address to www.identitytheft.com On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: > >Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to > >increase efficency 10 to 25% period. That's exactly what the oil companys would like everyone to believe. According to scientific research - about 3 ounces of Acetone added to every 10 gallons of gasoline helps some people, but NOT all, get significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run better. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less on fuel. Their greed knows no end. > On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less > on fuel. Their greed knows no end. The generally accepted rule was that gas goes 1/3 to heat to cooling system, 1/3rd to heat out the exhaust pipe and 1/3 toward moving the car. These were from years ago and no doubt have changed a bit for many reasons. Anyhow, to double the mileage or whatever the claim may be, you would have to cut the other two in half (in combination). Now, to business realities. There are more thanone or two engineers employed by car companies. If they could supply their firm with a device or combinatio of same to do what you claim the oil firms have hidden away, and thus gain o,e hell of an advantage over the others, don't you think that they would have? >On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" ><DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run >better. I'll bet you believe donkeys can fly too! Again anyone that gains form it has a durty system that acetone helps clean out. Least not forget the acetone is not at all kind to your fuel hoses and seals either. >Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their >safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get >huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make >billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less >on fuel. Their greed knows no end. It just get deeper all the time with you. You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles many years ago in college and there is no magic formula to boost engine MPG. Most of the energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance goes to flywheel after you subtract internal friction losses. A IC engine is a heat engine driven by energy in expanding gasses created by fuel burned. Like I said earlier, there is about 50 HP or heat energy in a gallon of pure gas and no additive short of nitro methane is going to boost that. The magic cure to boost MPG is to raise CR of engine and increase octane of fuel becuase the main reason diesels are more efficent at times is because they have a much higher CR than a gas motor and extract more energy from expanding gasses (called expansion ratio). While it is true that diesel has more energy in fuel too it is the higher CR that makes it shine. If oil companies and Detroit is doing anything to keep demand up it is the myth that 87 octane is all you ever need because as long as it is the mainstay, engine designed have to be compromised in design and operation to prevent them from being destroyed by detination from low octane gas. The ONLY reason there is a knock sensor on a engine is to keep consumer happy with his 87 octane feed by retarding sprak and reducing efficency and lower MPG and which provides the seeds for belief that a magic cure is being hidden and locked away. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > Most of the > energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance > goes to flywheel after you subtract internal friction losses. Ummmm....the friction losses are EXACTLY what go to the cooling system, with some no doubt going out the tailpipe. No need to subtract them twice. >> Most of the >> energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No need to subtract them twice. Well, there is a certain amount of combustion energy that goes to the cooling system. I suspect there is far more combustion energy at the radiator than friction energy, but what do I know ... >Ummmm....the friction losses are EXACTLY what go to the cooling system, >with some no doubt going out the tailpipe. You are not correct. Fricton goes to heat in block and most of that heat goes to cooling system (a very small amount is lost to air flow over engine) and then there is the fricton from shearing the oil which heats it up too and that goes to cooling system as well with some (a small amount) being lost in pan to airflow or a greater amount to airflow if you have a aux external engine oil cooler. The only heat from this to go out the tail pipe is from the extra fuel burned to overcome the friction not the heat from the fricton itself. Also a small fraction of that heat is lost to heating incoming mixture but this is a very small percentage unless you are running pure alchol and then the heat loss is a little higher. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > In article <3jrs3317ph2svkas6922f3vc5g2d5bn...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No need to subtract them twice. Not all the heat handled by the cooling system comes from frictional loses. The majority of it comes from keeping the cylinder walls and cylinder head cool. The cylinder walls are heated by friction to some degree, but most of the heat comes directly from the heat of combustion. Much of the heat generated by friction is transferred to the lubricating oil. The oil is also cooled somewhat by the main cooling system, but it also is cooled directly by contact with the oil pan, and for cars with sperate air to oil coolers seperately, by the air flowing trhough the cooler. Ed >Not all the heat handled by the cooling system comes from frictional >loses. The majority of it comes from keeping the cylinder walls and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pan, and for cars with sperate air to oil coolers seperately, by the >air flowing trhough the cooler. I did not say it that. I said that the energy from gas drives engine and the heat lost through cooling system is from the burning of fuel AND friction. Heat from fuel is the majority of heat to cooling system but friction generates some heat too. I did mention aux external oil coolers but even then the transfer some of the heat to cooling system either because of a heat exchanger in the radiator or a seperate cooler in front of the radiator which heat the air before it enters radiotr and reduce radiaator efficency some so directly or indirectly it goes into cooling system with a small percentage being lost through pan. Most of the waste heat goes out the tail pipe under WOT operation. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com "You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles many years ago in college........." "studsies" ??????? ..............by retarding sprak and reducing efficency and lower MPG........ "sprak" ??????? "efficency" ?????? TheSnoMan.com Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a Maroon"! Spdloader >"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles >many years ago in college........." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >MPG........ >"sprak" ??????? "efficency" ?????? You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated with typos's! ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated > with typos's! > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I'm "realy fasinated" that you refer to your lack of ability at conversing intelligently as "typo's"  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic >>principles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. Plus, I am bored, and, love to point out that you're an idiot. Spdloader > >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic > >>principles [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Spdloader Makes you wonder if everything he does is that sloppy... >> >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic >> >>principles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > ----------------- >> > TheSnoMan.com I have no doubt about that, 'cuda. Spdloader >> Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", >> contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Makes you wonder if everything he does is that sloppy... "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated >> with typos's! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", >contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. The word is "credibility," moron. >Plus, I am bored, and, love to point out that you're an idiot. It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) SignatureMFFYCam Videos Galore: http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) Well, Scott, you apparently missed it when I called him a "maroon". Instead of a moron. There is a reason for it all. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) Here ya go Scott in Aztlan. creditability noun Appearance of truth or authenticity: believability, color, credibility, credibleness, creditableness, plausibility, plausibleness, verisimilitude. See likely/unlikely. Now, I won't call you names, you can pick one for yourself. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) One more thing. Credibility speaks as to the credit of the story or message, while creditability, speaks as to the credit of the teller, or, originator of the story or message. Applied to this case, SnoJob has no creditability, and his stories and guesses have no credibility. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askfo...@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ FWIW: I'm MENSA qualified, but not a member. Horrible at sports and playing a musical instrument, poor dancer, great writer when I want to be, but a poor speller, was used as the problem-solver at most of the places where I worked, good lover, good public speaker and debater and the one the others at the car museum come to for automobile answers.. I used to do a brake job in record tile, but drop the screw under the distributer rotating plate when doing a tune-up. (My only car is over forty years old.) Like everyone else, my skills vary all over the spectrum. Knot awl uv us are grate spelars. On May 7, 7:11 am, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Spdloader" <askfo...@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ FWIW: I'm MENSA qualified, but not a member. Horrible at sports and playing a musical instrument, poor dancer, great writer when I want to be, but a poor speller, was used as the problem-solver at most of the places where I worked, good lover, good public speaker and debater and the one the others at the car museum come to for automobile answers.. I used to do a brake job in record tile, but drop the screw under the distributer rotating plate when doing a tune-up. (My only car is over forty years old.) Like everyone else, my skills vary all over the spectrum. Knot awl uv us are grate spelars. True, but SnoJob is an idiot. It's easy to overlook simple spelling of the normal folks in here, but he's not one of 'em. Spdloader > You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated > with typos's! > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com "You must be really bored or have an ego [issues], since [if] you are so fascinated with typo's." hee-hee. So am I. :~)> bob z. I think the acetone thing is BS. At the very least it is not worth introducing something like that into the fuel lines. There is a simple way everybody can save gas. It is called the accelerator. Ease off it and you save alot of gas. If you drive 55-60 mph you generally save alot of gas too. Checking tire pressure is also a cheap way to save some gas. > I think the acetone thing is BS. At the very least it is not > worth introducing something like that into the fuel lines. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 55-60 mph you generally save alot of gas too. Checking tire pressure > is also a cheap way to save some gas. Here, near NYC, it is called, "the train." Ride it, save the cost of tolls and you get to read as you go. There's even a potty on board, for those times you really have to go. Jeff Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote in article <IJ80i.8388$Q96.2986@trnddc04>... > Here, near NYC, it is called, "the train." Ride it, save the cost of tolls > and you get to read as you go. There's even a potty on board, for those > times you really have to go. Maybe it's just me, but I would be much more comfortable with a full, adult-sized restroom...... A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? The acetone doesn't dissolve the type of plastic that the acetone bottles are made of. Jeff >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic >containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? They don't. The pure acetone I have is in a cheap metal container. I imagine any pure acetone sold in plastic containers is sold in plastic which is specifically selected for its resistance to acetone. Fuel line materials are chosen for other reasons. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? Acetone in a plastic container would be in polyethylene, which holds up to it as it is a most inert plastic type. The O-rings that it would dissolve are made of types of rubber. Different stuff molecularly. I used to work in a chem lab (polyethylene R&D) and we used acetone to clean everything, pretty much a universal solvent. Tomes > >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pretty much a universal solvent. > Tomes Ahhhhhhhh Not Plexiglass, I hope. "Studemania" ... > "Tomes" : >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ahhhhhhhh Not Plexiglass, I hope. I suppose I meant we used it to clean everything (chemically) off of our glassware.... Tomes On May 6, 1:48 pm, Max <maxhem...@yahoo.com> rode off into the sunset after suggesting: > According to scientific research - about 3 ounces of Acetone added to > every 10 gallons of gasoline helps some people, but NOT all, get > significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run > better. > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive Gee; if it's in Wikipedia, *it must be true* ... unless you wrote it yourself. C'mon, Max; 'fess up. It's really bad form to *cite yourself* as a reference, you know. > http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Selected shining piece of bullshit from that page: "rapid inherent molecular vibration" of acetone. I'll bet the fuel line magnets really excite that, too. No wonder you don't want any 'Tornados' or other flow-disruptors messing around with that molecular vibration! This could bring the universe to a grinding halt! > Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their > safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get > huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make > billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less > on fuel. Their greed knows no end. Hey, I'm not scared. I've got enough tinfoil to make hat liners to the end of my days ... -- C.R. Krieger (Laughing all the way) > >>Maybe you work for an oil company. > >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> To OP: This is old old old news. This topic was debated to death in several loooong discussions months ago. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to > increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG > carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want > to believe in it. Heat energy is what drives a motor Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic engines? "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- BB0EB6.14555106052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic > engines? Never went anywhere. Car and Driver sent out a couple of guys (Don Sherman and Patrick Bedard?) in the '80s, to investigate just that. Apparently Smokey was quite reticent about details, and insisted on running the car on Indolene (a research fuel) and would not allow the CD crew to fill the car with retail pump gas. And can you imagine the NOx emissions? SignatureTegger >Never went anywhere. Back in the late 70's and early 80's they played with a ceramic engine that had no active cooling and it was about 50% more efficent (running 40 to 45% efficent on pump gas) but they dropped it because while they could get the engine to run and last a long time if it was never shut off and allowed to cool it had issues from constant heat on cool cycles that a engine sees in a consumers car. The next big step for gas engine will be direct injection which can in theory increase efficency 10 to 15%. It should start to become more wide spread by 2010 or so. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Never went anywhere. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > efficency 10 to 15%. It should start to become more wide spread by > 2010 or so. A while back the New York Times has an article about this. It said that these engines were more efficient in a particular speed (RPM) range. This makes me think that they will work particularly well on cars with CVTs and/or hybrid systems. Jeff > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > >Never went anywhere. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I seriously doubt that the engine was 40% to 45% efficient. The most efficient power plants barely approach 40% efficiency. In theory an otto cycle engine running at wide open throttle could be very efficient, but reality suggest that the best you are likely to do is 30% efficiency under ideal conditions (high compression ration, around 13:1; no throttling, minimal friction, no heat rejection to the cylinder walls,etc). Real world engines are closer to 17% efficiency. So, a 50% increase on 17% would be around 25%. This is at least believable. Ed >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic > engines? Great question! There's the thinking man showing up. That idea would work if you could build a ceramic engine or something like that. Adiabatic engines melt down. | > There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to | > increase efficency 10 to 25% If injectors* are very clogged, 1 / 2 bottles of detergent can clean * til efficiency may rise by 10%. www.aa1car.com/library/2003/ic30336.htm I find Abro brand can work, but no brand names its ingredient, all very coy. I cant really comment on acetone increasing mpg, and I have my doubts. I would believe it to clean the fuel system though, since it is a powerful solvent, and I have used it with a brush to clean carburetors during rebuilding them. I have also used lacquer thinner. Both work better to clean parts than the so called "carb cleaners". However, I would not use either as an additive, since I'd tend to think the both of them could damage the rubber and other synthetic parts of a carburetor/injector and other fuel components including the fuel hoses and fuel pump rubber parts. On the other hand, about 20 or more years ago I worked for a roofing company. We had large drums of Naptha which was used to clean rubber roofing prior to using the adhesive on the rubber. Several of the guys would add a pint or so of this Naptha to a tank of gas, and claimed it would increase engine power. They said that this was used in racing fuels. After seeing that none of them were having engine problems and knowing it would not harm rubber, I decided to give it a try, and they were right. I noticed a significant increase in engine power. This was an older car with a carburetor. How it would work with injectors is questionable. Supposedly it increased octane. I began to use it regularly, since it was available and free for the taking. I never had any engine problems, in fact that Chevy V8 engine lasted over 300,000 miles, and still ran when the transmission finally died and the body was falling apart from rust. >>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com >> Maybe you work for an oil company. >> Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I would be concerned as to what the Acetone was doing to the hoses and seals and any parts of the fuel pump. If it were actually recommend by chemists one would suspect the would be telling you to add an oxidizer to the air flow, not the fuel. LOL mike >>> Maybe you work for an oil company. >>> Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I would be concerned as to what the Acetone was doing to the hoses and > seals and any parts of the fuel pump. >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG >> carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want >> to believe in it. Sure there is! My product does it perfectly well. If you add just one gallon of my product to every ten gallons of gasoline, you will find that your gas mileage improves by 10%. You will be using 10% less gasoline to do the job. And my product only costs ten dollars a gallon.... --scott (rapidly funnelling gasoline into gallon bottles as we speak...) Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive Where is the scientific study? Because if the following is all you have, it ain't enough as this is just nonsense talk. Still, fuel needs a kick of some kind to transform from big globs into a full vapor. The acetone provides that kick with its rapid inherent molecular vibration that prevents fuel from escaping the combustion process and going through unburned. What, scientifically, is this kick that fuel needs? In what way is acetone providing it? And if this kick is necessary and only acetone can provide it, exactly how is it that engines have ever run without it? Best estimations are that Acetone added to fuel may act as a cleaner dissolving deposits within the fuel system. The same thing any fuel system cleaner will do for you. > Maybe you work for an oil company. > Scientific testing indicates that it works: > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive I must have missed the "Scientific testing" portion of the link while skimming through it. All I read were anecdotal reports, I didn't see any real reputable science lab tests listed. Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message > Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? No really scientific work done on this as far as I can see. A colleague of mine tried this sort of thing years ago as a fuel for his 50-60s era stock car. Even that was not done scientifically, but he claimed that systems of gasoline-acetone-water seemed to hold some promise in racing. He dropped the idea as the elements of the fuel system had a high failure rate with this concoction. I suspect that, if it worked as he told me, the effects may have had to do with preignition, detonation, etc in these older technology engines which were pushed about as far as they could go at that time. (The friend WAS a scientist, but the testing was done on a trial and error basis and the results were subjective) > "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message >> Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A colleague of mine tried this sort of thing years ago as a fuel for > his 50-60s era stock car. ///snipped for brevity/// Am I the only one to remember this (or perhaps I dreamed it) that in the late 40's and into the 50's a company advertised in magazine such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc., a SUPER FUEL ADDITIVE that would run an internal combustion engine on nearly any liquid, including plain water! The entrepeneur and his reps toured around giving demonstrations where they attached a one gallon jug of water to a car or truck engine, added their "magick potion" and fired it up. Guess what? The engine ran! Not only did it run but it ran fine. What was the additive? Acetone! The only problem (not mentioned by the sellers of the snake oil) was that the engine life was severely reduced. I don't recall the nature of the problem but something about burnt valves and upper end problems as the acetone washed the lubricant off the upper parts of the engine, as I recall. Bottom line - after a few years the ads disappeared because the company and its personnel were engaged in a legal battle with several states and the feds. I believe that fraud was the word most often used. DaveD <...> > Am I the only one to remember this (or perhaps I dreamed it) that in the > late 40's and into the 50's a company advertised in magazine such as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DaveD If acetone really did deliver such improved fuel mileage, engine engineers would be able to figure how to lubricate engines properly while using acetone. But the reality is that fuel is burned nearly completely as it is in engines. Which means that you're not going to gain much efficiency in cars by burning fuel more completely, as claimed by the acetone people. Jeff >> "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message >>> Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > DaveD I asked a friend who is an R&D chemist developing automotive fuels for the oil companies about adding acetone. I was surprised when he said that adding some acetone would probably improve the combustion process, power output, and fuel economy, but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring life. From a cost/benefit perspective, he said that the cost of alternative fuel lines, gaskets, and O-rings that could tolerate the acetone would negate the benefit derived from adding the acetone. Bottom line, he said that they have already been there, done that, and would add it to their formula if it was worth it. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring life>> I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? as an industrial cleaner? > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > > life>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene because > it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. Basically, that is correct. While smaller alcohols are corrosive, acetone is just a *really* good solvent. Even if it does not dissolve the solids, it may simply infiltrate them, softening and swelling them. Having spent the better part of an hour I could better have spent surfing ebay, I found no significant scientific content nor viable testing in LaPointe and associates-generated websites. It is all crap. -- C.R. Krieger <...> > I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene > because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. Wouldn't dissolving the rubber be corroding the rubber? Jeff Hint: Don't test this out with your condems before using them. In alt.autos.toyota Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote: > <...> > >> I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene >> because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. > > Wouldn't dissolving the rubber be corroding the rubber? Actually, we think he meant that by dissolving rubber, the rubber underwent a process by which it would dissolve, as opposed to undergoing a process by which it corrodes. cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > rm Yup, that's what I meant! ;-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? Yup. It does an amazing job cleaning spray equipment. > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? Hardware stores. > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, Have you tried removing nail polish without using acetone? >> <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring >> life>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have you tried removing nail polish without using acetone? Gee, I don't wear nail polish. Jeff > Scientific testing indicates that it works: > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive There is no scientific evidence at this site, only hearsay, testimonials and wishful thinking of perpetual motion machines. Testimonials are not scientific evidence. Mr. Allan (the owner of the website) is clearly someone who does not understand physics. In fact, he seems a bit 'out there'.... http://www.sterlingdallan.com/resume/index.html SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2 days 7:16 > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive > > There is no scientific evidence at this site, only hearsay, testimonials > and wishful thinking of perpetual motion machines. OK, so if you drive your Prius with one foot on the brake very lightly... > Mr. Allan (the owner of the website) is clearly someone who does not > understand physics. In fact, he seems a bit 'out there'.... > > http://www.sterlingdallan.com/resume/index.html Never mind, I found out where he got his knowledge of physics: http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm Apparently his father is as nutty as he is. Sounds impressive, but when you read it, it's pure nonsense. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2 days 9:43 > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe you work for an oil company. Maybe you work for a company that makes rubber seals, which will need to be replaced soon after you starting putting that crap in your tank. or perhaps you work for an acetone manufacturer. See, I can play that game too. Now, back to the "science". BTW, MythBusters blew this one out of the water a long time ago. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. Hey now, Bigfoot wouldn't have been shown landing on the moon (in that movie studio) unless acetone were involved. The Loch Ness Monster turned the part down, as I recall. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. I was near a line at the UK auto show where people were lined up to pay 5 PGB ($8) for cow mangets to tie to their fuel line to align the molecules. A guy (SCCA Racer) trying to tie me into a scheme selling some sort of snake-oil to increase power and mileage. I gave it a good test As an occasional test engineer, car mechanic, and free-lance writer, I thoughb the investment would e interesting ($15), so design and ran a professional level - on the road - test. Change in acceeraion (both ways) :none Change in fuel use in every-day driving: none, taking into account acceptable error > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Change in fuel use in every-day driving: none, taking into account > acceptable error Before you ask, the power test was a 10 MPH to 60 MPH in 3rd gear acceleration, going each direction to account for wind and slope. Always done at the same spot on the old 101 south of San Jose. Smooth, near level, and no traffic at the time I tested. > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. <...> > http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm I noticed that there were a total of ZERO references in that article. Nail polish remover is acetone. I really doubt that it makes much of a difference in gas mileage. Jeff >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I really doubt that it makes much of a difference in gas mileage. Nobody's posted this link yet, so I will: <http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns//Archive/2006/January/08.html> SignatureTegger >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >>> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nobody's posted this link yet, so I will: > <http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns//Archive/2006/January/08.html> So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? Let's see: They both went to MIT, one has a DBAand Tom's udnergrad degree is in chemical engineering. Gee, I guess they should know what they're talking about. And they're right about this one. Jeff > So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff Yup. Good Ole Tommy and Ray. Tommy's a PhD. >> So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yup. Good Ole Tommy and Ray. Tommy's a PhD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Talk says it is a DBA. However, MIT says it's a Ph.D. Guess what? I will go with MIT and say, you're right, it's a Ph.D. http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200301/magliozzi.shtml They gave the MIT commencement address in 1999, too. I don't think they got honarary Ph.D.s. Jeff The basic limiting factor to how well any engine can run is the burn time of the fuel. The internal combustion engine burns the fuel inside the cylinder to get expansion thereby extracting power. That is one strock of the four stroke motor. Then the heated, expanding, still burning, not completelly burned gases and waste products are funnelled out thru the exhaust. All this takes place very rapidlly. At 2,500 rpm devide minute by four devide by 1,250 and get time of burn, work cycle. The answer is the external combustion engine. Also known as the steam engine. But the driving public will not give up rapid accelleration. disston > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and > costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. This again? You try it and let us know how you make out. I gave the van I was going to try it in away, and the rest of my cars run too well to try Voodoo with... >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You try it and let us know how you make out. I gave the van I was going to > try it in away, and the rest of my cars run too well to try Voodoo with... This is soo funny. Years ago in another life time I remember reading long before I was born how some crank was advertising running on water and acetone. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison investigated the man's claims. What they found was detonation was so severe an engine would never last long on the stuff, and it was also highly corrosive to the fuel system and engine components. This just goes to show how long crack pots have been trying to push this sh.t as a fuel, or fuel additive. It didn't work back in the early 1900's any better than it works today. Whitelightning >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >>> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > early 1900's any better than it works today. > Whitelightning For you to get the type of increase they are advertising, a lot of unburned fuel would have to be leaving the engine. That's just not the case. Fuel is nearly completely burned. This reminds me of those tornado things advertised on TV. The ones that swirl the air and fuel together and work on every engine. I believe that people who use acetone and those tornado things get better mileage because they think they will and drive better, with slower acceleration, letting off the gas when approachign a stop light (instead of racing up to see who gets to stop first), etc. Any change in the fuel mileage is from the way people drive with this stuff. Jeff > This reminds me of those tornado things advertised on TV. The ones that > swirl the air and fuel together and work on every engine. Oh yeah! I'm going to put one of THOSE in the air stream, after the air filter, with NOTHING to stop one of those cheap looking blades from getting sucked into the intake plenum! It appears the kooks in the NGs are not only taking politics. Oil company and auto manufacture greed? Get real, if any oil company could advertise increased mileage by using THEIR brand, you can bet the farm they would be adding acetone. The introduction of ANY additive into the gasoline distribution system is strictly prohibited by the current environmental laws, precluding the addition of acetone at the refinery by the oil companies. As to the vehicle manufactures, why in the world would they NOT want their vehicles to get better mileage to meet CAFE regulations and reduce emissions? That would allow them to sell more of the higher profit vehicles that their customers really want to buy. As to oxidizers per se it seems to me, as with the case of nitrous oxide, one would be better off adding them to the air flow Does the term snake oil, ring a bell? ;) mike > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the unburned portion of the fuel to gain added vaporization and > improved combustion efficiency. > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. 10- 15 cents an ounce is like $15 a gallon!! >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air >> pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > >10- 15 cents an ounce is like $15 a gallon!! Hey retard, why haven't you answered my question regarding your belief that cars should have bumpers on the side? SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >>> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hey retard, why haven't you answered my question regarding your belief > that cars should have bumpers on the side? Bumpers on the side? Good idea! If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians when playing Death Race 2,0...er I mean, if a pedestrian steps out in front of you. I guess side bumpers are just the next step in protecting us from ourselves... > If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are > designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians > when playing Death Race 2,0...er I mean, if a pedestrian steps out in > front of you. I guess side bumpers are just the next step in protecting us > from ourselves... Or from trees we drift into >> If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are >> designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or from trees we drift into Ever driven a Porsche 911? On all other cars, you lift to get out of trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a tree all right! >> On May 10, 2:44 am, Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>> If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a >tree all right! While lift-throttle oversteer is notorious on the 911, it's certainly not exclusive to it. I think it was Car&Driver which wrecked an MR-2 under test that way, for instance. Many cars will do it under the right conditions. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. ///snipped/// >>Ever driven a Porsche 911? On all other cars, you lift to get out of >>trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wrecked an MR-2 under test that way, for instance. Many cars will do > it under the right conditions. I can vouch for the fact that, lift-throttle steer, torque steer, or what ever you wish to call it, is not unique the the 911. The Lotus 47 (Lotus Europa in the U.S.) could literally be driven through curves (gentle ones I admit) simply by applying throttle or reducing throttle, never needing to move the steering wheel a bit. Of course, the engine placement may have been a factor also.... DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... > I can vouch for the fact that, lift-throttle steer, torque steer, or what > ever you wish to call it, is not unique the the 911. The Lotus 47 (Lotus > Europa in the U.S.) could literally be driven through curves (gentle ones I > admit) simply by applying throttle or reducing throttle, never needing to > move the steering wheel a bit. Now, that's absolutely amazing...... Without moving the steering wheel a bit, the car instinctively knew whether to oversteer to the right or left.......depending on the curve. Maybe you should contact some race teams and let them in on this secret? I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each other............. He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones that have been wrecked have. SignatureSteve Barker > Now, that's absolutely amazing...... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each > other............. > He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones > that have been wrecked have. Actually, I wouldn't call the Lotus 47 an ill-designed car. Rather, it is a characteristic of mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles to differing degrees. DaveD >> Now, that's absolutely amazing...... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each >> other............. >> He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones >> that have been wrecked have. > >Actually, I wouldn't call the Lotus 47 an ill-designed car. Rather, it is a >characteristic of mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles to differing >degrees. Ever tried to change the starter on one? Ill-designed seems an appropriate description to me. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones >>> that have been wrecked have. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > description to me. > --scott Well, now that is a whole different story. Changed starters which was very interesting and rebuilt the rear axles, which was even a greater challenge. I had never run across what is basically a three piece (each side) axle...Not ill-designed but rather designed without considering that people would have to work on them outside of Chapman's shop in Leighton Buzzard. DaveD Steve Barker <ichasetrains@some.yahoo.com> wrote in article <nZudnRrpI8wPVtrbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>... > He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones > that have been wrecked have. Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... When did they make the last FWD Lotus? > Steve Barker <ichasetrains@some.yahoo.com> wrote in article > <nZudnRrpI8wPVtrbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When did they make the last FWD Lotus? If you don't know the answer to that why don't you just shut up and stop displaying your ignorance. Torque steer has been around far longer than the flourescence of front wheel drive. DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <46494720$1@news.acsalaska.net>... > > Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > displaying your ignorance. Torque steer has been around far longer than the > flourescence of front wheel drive. Please! Enlighten us as to how engine torque steers the front wheels on a RWD car...... > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > <46494720$1@news.acsalaska.net>... Yall sound like a bunch of kindergarten kids in a sand box. Give it a rest, or at least keep it in your own sand box. Beginning to sound as bad as MTT has gotten. Whitelightning |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message