Ultimate fuel additive?

With all due respect, Yin, I think you're wrong. What basis would he possibly have to assume this was some kind of assault on F-car owners? Most of the folks on this site, him included, drive cars other than Ferraris most of the time, even if they own one. The thread had to do with acetone as an additive in ANY car, not just Ferraris, and the testing everyone is doing is all on non-F-cars. Maybe I went too far, but I thought it was a totally idiotic comment and he deserved to be called on it. And I think if you go back, you'll see that Gary didn't provide bad data. He pointed to a website and asked the question whether this was real or not. It didn't deserve what Perfusion posted, IMHO.

 

I agree Perfusion was overly aggressive, I was in agreement with your post up until the P.S. My point was just that there was no call to even discuss whether he did or didn't own an F-car when he was speaking as an FChat member.

 

Your comment about being "above reproach" is what I take issue with. It implies that being a non-owner is in fact a point for reproach.

Up to the point where FasterIsBetter was commenting on Perfusion's actual behavior that was fine. The comment in the P.S. derided his state, not his behavior, though. I believe that went too far and has secondary effects on readers who might leave with an impression that you have to be an owner to participate.

As FasterIsBetter said on another thread, "If I went too far by criticizing you for lack of ownership in that thread, my apologies." I'm posting on this thread just to clarify the issue here for other readers who may not see that discussion (no you don't have to be an owner to participate here and you shouldn't be derided for your ownership state).

BTW - my own observation is that Perfusion behaved uncharacteristically on this thread. He's a poster in Norcal and always been civil and I've done a quick scan of his last 2-300 posts and haven't seen any "flaming" in those. Maybe he was just having a bad day and deserves a little slack.

 

Slack cut. I think we've beaten this to death. Let's all agree to move on and get back to the issue at hand. Ernie, any word on the mileage on the 2nd tank of gas/acetone??

 

A gas can exert a tangential (shearing) force on a surface, which acts like friction between solid surfaces. This "sticky" property of the gas is called the viscosity and it plays a large role in aerodynamic drag. The sea level standard value of air viscosity mu is:

mu = 1.73 x 10^-5 Newton-second/square meters = 3.62 x 10^-7 pound-second/square feet

Any mathmatical modeling of the flow of an air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, and flow of the products of combustion out of the engine, will have viscosity as one of the terms in the equation.
But it only varies a very small amount compared to the other variables.

Cheers
Warren

 

I'm getting confused here (but I haven't started reading all the reference threads yet). Where did the xylene experiment come from? Is it supposed to do something in combo with the acetone or separately? Remember, when you're trying to prove or disprove something, work with one variable at a time and control your experiments.

 

Xylene/Toluene are actually fairly well-known octane boosters (both were used as racing fuel for F1 turbocharged engines in the 1980s (mixes were 70+% toluene) and currently exist in higher octane pump fuels in far smaller quantities). Neither is an "oxygenate." They're both aromatic hydorcarbons like benzene (see below) and their stability at higher temperatures and pressures is what makes them valuable anti-detonation additives.

Toluene is, in effect, ~114 octane (R+M/2 method), and xylene is even higher. Both will increase the "octane level" of your fuel. ...and make it harder to tell what the acetone is doing.


Oxygenates in fuel are usually alochols (ethanol) or ether (MTBE - methyl tertiary butyl ether) which are used because they have relatively high octane ratings and, supposedly, reduce smog production by reducing the reactivity of emissions (created by incomplete combustion). Oxygenates, however, release less energy per unit of combustion than xylene/toluene.


However, both hydrocarbons you talk about, xylene and toluene, are combustible and do contribute to combustion in gasoline. Like all hydrocarbons they form water and CO2 _if combusted completely_ -- which, of course, doesn't always happen. Hence the oxygen additives.

Image 1 = benzene
Image 2 = toluene
Image 3 = xylene isomers
(sorry about the scale)
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Late tomorrow, or the next day, I'll have the numbers for the second tank.

 

That's my undergrad degree, but everything I've learned in the field came from the OEMs. Sorry guys, I need to sit on the sideline on this thread.

Check the SAE for papers that have been published for more details.

 

Not to get things off-track again, but let me just chime in one last time for a final "say":

Yin - I appreciate your support very much...

FasterIsBetter - You said, "Slack Cut." Thank You.

Gary48 - Please accept my apologies for "flaming" you - it was, indeed, very uncharacteristic of me. Although I can't remember the exact evening I posted, perhaps (as Yin suggested) I had a bad day and was just taking it out online. I do not wish to be branded a flamer, as it is not who I am. If I stepped over the line or was overly aggressive, it was only in defense of the community "at-large" which I am very passionate about and want to protect. Consider an analogy... A "jock" is bullying a "nerd" on the playground - a kid from a different "clique" (neither a jock nor a nerd) intervenes and says, "Hey, cut it out." I suppose I assumed the roll of the 3rd kid - I wasn't trying to speak on behalf of owners, as I know better than that, because I am not one. I felt, at the time, that there was a possibility of you having malicious intent -- "Haha...I'm gonna go sign up on FChat and trick people into putting something harmful in their gas tanks! They'll do anything for a few more HP.... Just look at the prices of aftermarket exhuasts!"

I don't believe that to be your intention anymore. I was simply attempting to describe my feelings at the time of my original post(s) so that, hopefully, you'll see that I wasn't trying to start a war for no good reason...just being defensive. It was inappropriate, however, and I again apologize.

Happy Holidays to you all -

Aaron

 

That's an ambitious goal, but more power to you for attempting it then.

I'm not at all comfortable that we know enough about acetone yet based on what's been presented so far. It may have been overlooked in the sidebar discussion, but there are additional data points that I find interesting:

I also noted the discussion regarding whether the claimed benefit was due to the improved vaporization (due to surface tension changes) or cleansing properties of acetone. The cleansing mechanism could explain why some cars reported on the other site benefited while others didn't (the cars weren't dirty). If due to cleansing, then reverting to a non-acetone mix after a substantial gain should still see the gain until the system gets dirty again. Also if someone had a high mileage car which they've owned since new, perhaps they can assert original gas mileage measurements against current gas mileage, then try the acetone.

Lots of questions to ask still.

 

Yin,

To let you know, the Navigator that I am trying the acetone in has approx. 80k on it. I have owned the truck since new. The truck has averaged approx. 12.5 mpg since new( combined city,highway and towing) . I am trying the experiment for a month in order to determin if the acetone is in fact a viable fuel additive. Although I have not gone through a full tank yet, I have observed the fact the truck has a less tendency to detonate when using 87 octane. (91 is recomended). This in itself may be a reason to use it(along with 91 octane) when towing.

Darrell.

 

More discussions going on all over the web about acetone as an additive...

I found this site that has a lengthy discussion and a few more data points.

http://maintenance.autoblog.com/entry/1234000143060259/

Then there's this site (at Edmunds.com) that has a very lengthy discussion. Starts at post #536 and goes on. (The entire thread is about additives, so going to post #1 may be of interest to those looking at other additives).

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef047b3/529

I found this quote there: "The fact is that acetone has been tested as a fuel additive since at least the late 1930s by such august institutions as the NACA and has been proven scientifically to have little if any efficacy. Unfortunately the NACA archives are not searchable from that era (they are simply scanned in images of old type-writer written reports)"

There is a mention in both threads of possible catalytic converter damage. There also seems to be more agreement that it helps against detonation than agreement that it helps mileage.

Here's another site frequented by chemists, with some additional insight.

http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2517


BTW those who are experimenting, be observant of driving variances. We all know mileage can vary 30-40% depending on how you drive (e.g. we're entering a season where A/C's are likely to be off while your last recollection of gas mileage was from the summer when it was most likely on). Has anyone seen the Top Gear episode where Clarkson goes from London to Scotland and back on one tank of gas and all the things he was doing to stretch the mileage?

 

Try some tri nitro toluene. That'll give you a blast in the seat of the pants meter.

aehaas

 

Trying to do this kind of research by a combination of anecdotal evidence, largely uncontrolled experiments containing uncertain to unknown baseline data and many variables, and no theoretical basis for what EXACTLY is to be tested is, to say the least, the hard way to do research. Sometimes gas mileage is the issue, sometimes "more complete combustion", and at other times deposit formation or removal from engines.
The issue of better combustion (mileage, power) vs. a proposed additive is very simple to test conclusively in a lab. An IC engine is set up to measure all inputs, outputs, and performance data. There are a number of such labs in the country. Some are in Universities, and it is a certainty that there are industry equivalents.
As one example of basic data which should be estimated before any research of this type is started is a heat balance on a proposed test engine. This gives an envelope of possible results from which to design your experiment and interpret results.
A typical automotive engine running a 10:1 combustion ratio might show something in the range of the following, depending on load, speed, and other factors. 40 - 60% of the input energy (combustion energy) is used to heat the atmosphere- mostly by coolant transfer to the radiator/oil cooler, another 15 - 20% leaves as hot products of combustion (exhaust gas). What is left over can then supply pumping losses, frictional drag, and power to rotate the crank. As you can see, there are some solid, firm limits to possible efficiency. Imagine trying to run an engine with no cooling (to avoid cooling losses), or no hot exhaust gas (Heat, Mass flow) out of the combustion chamber.
Since the maximum heat developed by the combustion process for most liquid and gaseous fuels (and any mixture) is pretty well known to within a few percent, it is possible to see quickly where improvements must be made to utilize this known combustion energy more efficiently.
As one example heat losses to the radiator/oil cooler are the largest source of inefficiency but are needed to keep the walls of the combustion chamber cool enough that the engine can survive. Better combustion is not in play for this source of inefficiency. So there is a lot of work going on to improve heat losses in this area. It a apparent that is an obvious area to look for large improvements.
The issue of a clean engine, however, can be tested -but only if done in a controlled manner with good baseline data.

Cheers
Warren

 

Warren,

I'm sure you are absolutely correct about the un-scientific approach being taken here to testing the use of acetone. A scientist could probably make the measurements you refer to and do all the analysis better than anecdotal reports. But, in the end the only thing that matters to most of us here is whether this additive will produce any noticable difference in gas mileage when we actually drive our cars on the street under normal operating conditions. I think that's what Ernie and several others are trying to get at. Having solid scientific data on how this stuff performs in the lab is great. However, as a practical matter, I'd only be interested in trying it if it was going to make a noticable and significant difference in the mileage I get from a tank of gas. So I'll just wait and see what Ernie and the others experience before going out and trying it myself.

Regards,
Steve

 

Agreed that people posting their fuel economy before & after isn't a good controlled experiment to debunk this clown. (oops, there went my objectivity!) However, a dyno lab isn't required to disprove this, if there were 2 people adequately interested in "testing" this, they could run SAE Type IV fuel economy testing on a Saturday. Essentially, you use 2 vehicles & drivers and fill up at a gas station as repeatably as possible. (i.e. 3 clicks with a few seconds between each.) Each car & driver goes and runs the same course at the same time. The trip concludes at the same gas station and both fill up again. Repeat three times (I've cheated and only done 2) ensuring the ratio of fuel used from vehicle 1 to vehicle 2 is within 2% run-to-run. Now make a change, in this case adding the acetone to one vehicle, and repeat. The difference in fuel ratio before vs after shows the effect of the acetone. The 2nd vehicle is used as a control to capture effects of changes in ambient, etc.

But remember! We're looking for a 15-35% claim... easy to find! What MPG did I get last December, and what MPG do I get with acetone? If it's 15-35% better, it'll be pretty obvious!