Ultimate fuel additive?

I agree that we can't compete with a properly set up lab, but a good literature search, not just cherrypicking what you want to hear, is the first order of business because the experiment, medical condition, legal issue, invention, or apparatus design may have already been researched. That is what doctors, engineers, scientists, lawyers, et. al. do when confronted with a new problem - research the prior art. From the scattered data I have seen, the anecdotal data sometimes claims one result, the thermodynamic approach gives a quite different answer. And many of the questions we are discussing have been answered both from theory and experiment.
As far as a straightforward use test is concerned, the basic problem with testing for cleansing properties is that most of us have been using gasoline which has already been formulated with additives designed do the same thing. In fact, I don't know where you could get gas which does not contain such an additive. And there are experimental laboratory tests which confirm a decrease in deposits. It appears to be a settled issue. Whether one additive is better or worse, is all that is remains, from practical point of view.
As one piece of anecdotal "evidence", I have tested acetone in a 1950 Ford V-8. At about 80 K miles. No change in any measurable parameters. And gas mileage had not changed as the engine (presumably) collected deposits prior to the acetone additions. (I am reporting actual results - just delayed a bit)
It would be pretty radical to expect any large increase in power or mileage by cleaning whatever deposits had formed, since they had not affected gas consumption up to that point.

Cheers
Warren

 

Okay kids, the results for the second tank are in.

The last time I gave you guys the odometer milage and the corrected milage. So from now on I'm just gonna give the corrected milage. Just as a refresher my odometer is off .03 per mile.

I filled up this time at a Chevron gas station with 87 octane. A sticker on the pump says "with Techron" so I don't have to buy any . Anyway, so that I don't have to keep repeating things I am only using 87. However I will be filling up at different places. It just depends on where I am when I need gas.

Okay so the corrected milage for this tank was 420.137. The amount of gasoline at fill up came to 12.452 gallons. Giving us a miles per gallon of 33.74.

A slight increase, but don't get too excited. The reason is because I have seen this milage before. The increase is mainly due to more of the driving being on the freeway at a constant speed, as compaired to a mix of city/freeway driving. The last tank I drove about 120 miles of the tank around town. This time it was maybe 35 miles. The rest was all freeway driving, with a very small amount of stop and go traffic. But for the most part all freeway driving with the cruse control set to 65 mph.

Again, this is an improvement but, I have seen these numbers before. Now if I start getting solid into the 34 & 35's then maybe we can assume it has something to do with the acetone. So far I'm not convinced.

So tanks:
1) 31.6 mpg
2) 33.74 mpg

Stay tuned for the next show "tank 3". Will it be more, will it be less, will it be the same. Tune in next fill up to another exciting espisode of "Acetone".

 

the biggest anomoly here that needs to be addresed is the type and conditions of the driving. PM did a few experiments on this vane with different claimed gadjets. they ran the cars as is for a base line, on rollers. then did the mods. the key here is all conditions the same excpet for the mods. so if one really wants to put it to rest they'll need to strap the car on rollers and run one base line then run the modified gas mixture.

 

No, not really. Remember, the claim is 15-35% better fuel economy. That's pretty damned easy to find. And there is no need for a chassis dyno to get reliable fuel economy results, see my post #100 in which I outline the basics of SAE Type IV on road fuel economy testing. But what two people, located near each other, really care enough about this to waste an entire Saturday testing?

 

Tank #3 results.

Corrected milage - 394.387
Gallons of Gas - 12.896
Miles per gallon - 30.582

This tank was again most of the driving on the freeway. A bit more stop and go traffic, with around 70 miles driven at a speed of about 75-80mph.

So a recap.

tanks:
1) 31.6 mpg
2) 33.74 mpg
3) 30.58 mpg

grand totals:

gasoline - 37.698 gal
miles - 1201.289
mpg - 31.866

So with the results we have so far it is really leaning towards "myth". The info from the sight sure looks convincing at first glance. But now that we are putting the acetone to a real world test, it sure doesn't perform as claimed.

I have noticed one thing though. My fuel gage hasn't been reading as accurate. For example, today the needle was half on the empty line and half off the line. Off as in fumes in the tanks off. Well for one I don't trust gas gages, which is why I keep track of the milage. That and I only had about 323 miles traveled showing on the trip meter. Me knowing my cars the way I do, I knew that I could still drive to around 385 miles on a tank. Remember this is what I have observed for the last 4 years. So paying no attention to the gas gage I drove home. Wouldn't you know it my trip meter showed 382.9 miles (394.3 corrected) just as I had always gotten.

So maybe the acetone is playing tricks on the fuel gage, but it's not playing tricks on me. Even the last few fill ups, if you look back at the gallons, they weren't as empty as they could have been. So this time around I figured I would stick to the old school and go off the milage.

Anyway.

The results for tank #4 will be next week some time.

 

The name of the thread is "the ultimate fuel additive" and I guess that goes much beyond mear milage. I have seen much smoother running with acetone alone and have seen much more performance with acetone and xylene in equal amounts. This all begs the question, what other knowledge and experiance are out there to continue our quest to learn more. Don't worry about the flamers, they are gone, replaced by interested people on the hunt and eager to learn. Experiances? Knowledge? Theories? We will take you seriously.

 

The flamers aren't gone, I don't believe a word of it. Show me data, a dyno sheet, a 1/4 mile time improvement, anything to show a gain, then I'll listen.

There are additives out there that do work, most are Nitro based.

 

It looks to me like you found the way acetone works and why it takes at least 5 tanks to see the gain....it ruins the gas gage float so you end up putting in less gas so it seems like a savings. Most peole won't notice they are buying fuel every 4 days instead of 5, but do notice they spend less each time.

 

Actually I noticed it the first fill-up.

 

Mark, "Never let your schooling interfere with your education" We are not interested in proving anything to you. More than anything we would like you to contribute.

 

OK, I won't let my schooling interfere. So please educate me on HOW MUCH MORE peformance and HOW MUCH SMOOTHER?

 

Ernie,

Are you continuing the test for another tank or two? It certainly seems that you're seeing no difference whatsover in gas mileage, on average. With the kinds of numbers that were claimed, you should be seeing more like 35, 36 37 mpg, which would be readily noticable. On average over the three tanks, you're right where you started mpg-wise. But maybe your injectors are a little bit cleaner.

So as we all suspected, it's starting to look like snake oil. As one of the great luminaries of our time, Cher, used to say in her old Bally's Fitness Center ads, "If it came in a bottle, everyone would have a great body."

Regards,
Steve

 

Well, then prove it to yourself and generate meaningful data. Erie has pretty much disposed of the increased mileage claim…which of course was the expected result. You are claiming a snapping better running engine, can you support that claim in any way?

 

Yup still testing.

I'm on tank #4 right now. I think this tank will yeild better gas milage. How so you ask? Is it the acetone, is it something else? Heheheheeeee. You'll just have to tune in at next fill up.

 

Mark, you need to provide yourself with meaningfull data yourself. I have reported that the engine would load up down low and now runs perfectly clean and responsive down low. I had also reported that the power range has come on a full 500 rpm lower on a particular vehical, and the performance is noticably better.
I think that my observation is all I need to convince myself that the addition of these additives is creating satisfactory responses and is cheap enough so that it justifies my continued use. Again I do not feel the need to provide proof to convince you, only to provide observations that may inspire free thinking and experimentation. I think that you would do the thread some real good by experimenting on a wheel dyno, this would at least answer some questions for yourself and hopefully you would share your results, good or bad. I would love to do this myself but we have no wheel dyno in our area. I am really tuned in to the running and performance of my cars and I notice very small differences when they occur. What I have observed is real and that is all I need for the moment.

 

Gary,
your observations may be enough to convince you, but when you come to a public discussion and present a marvelous new secret way to increase your power and mileage at the same time to a group of automotive enthusiasts, you have to do more than say "I believe it" to convince them that you've got something. So far, the data that's been collected and presented by a (presumably) impartial observer here disproves the value of acetone. Personal testimonials (especially on the internet!) don't carry much weight.

"In God We Trust, all others bring data."

 

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"
Albert Eienstein

 

(P.S. Einstein)

"re·search
n.

1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry.
2. Close, careful study."

"scientific method
n.

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."

Gary -

Scientific research includes consideration of negative evidence as well as positive evidence. Peer review and repeatability by independent parties are also critical parts of scientific research. This is all part of "close, careful study". The reality is that good scientific research is often repetitive, can be boring and many people don't have the temperament for it. They want to get on to other things after a few trials. They also tend to consider only the evidence that proves their hypothesis and discount the evidence that disproves it.

You've brought forth an interesting link, I believe with good intent. But the manner in which you're pursuing this investigation is not scientific. Saying that your experiments are good enough to satisfy you is fine for yourself, but it doesn't satisfy many other people. If you want to prove this idea just for yourself, it would have been enough to do what you did and be happy with your results.

But you also state you want this thread to act as an archive for future reference. If this is really the case, then the only data that has been close to "scientific" that I've seen so far is ernie's. He has actual measurements, he documents the prior history and he documents the approximate driving conditions he experienced. There's a lot of data and instrumentation that could be improved for ernie's car if we were really doing this as a research lab, but the methodology is at least reasonable.

There have been a lot of suggestions made as to how to improve these experiments to raise the evidence from the anecdotal to something more convincing. Controlling your variables; doing double-blind tests; taking two cars and doing side-by-side driving on the same day, same route, same gas, one with and one without acetone. Even without a dyno, there could be a lot more done if you're serious about proving or disproving this idea so that others would treat this thread as a useful reference as you hope.

 

Ah! yes it inspired action to the question " how can this be"? siting others findings and trying ourselves. No credence can be given to anyone who after seeing most of the data and making bold statements can be given any credit other than seizing an opportunity to discredit someone who raised the question in the first place. In doing so it elevates them (falsely and temporarily) and this thoroughly revels more about their character than they probably realize. Hindsite is 20/20 but does nothing to advance or disprove an idea. Only by being on the attack does the perpetrator feel he is accomplishing something based on data that he himself did not contribute to.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure of the former." Albert Eienstein

 

Gary48's most recent postings seem to indicate he's spent too much time on the gas guy's website... Is any of this making sense to anyone else anymore?

Gary, slow down and re-read before clicking Submit, we don't understand what you're trying to say any more! Drop the Einstein quotes, I don't think they're impressing anybody. Pick a direction: be content that it works for yourself and let the rest of us waste fuel and miss out on uncaptured power from our engines because we havent been enlightened, or present what the rest of us are demanding in order to be convinced: data. Please spare us the ideological rants. Claims have been made of significant improvements in measurable quantities. Measurements are the way to prove them.

 

Its working!

 

For someone who likes to quote Einstein, you really have a poor understanding of scientific research. I believe my comments stand for themselves and were meant as constructive to help you achieve your objectives. But apparently, anything which contradicts you is taken as an "attack".

P.S. The accepted spelling is "Einstein" as I've already mentioned. Perhaps you consider this as further unwarranted criticism which is meant only to "elevate [me] (falsely and temporarily)"?

 

I thought that was the wrong spelling from my book of quotes, thanks for the correction.

" when ideas fail, word come in very handy" Goethe - at least thats how I think its spelled.

 

Data please.

You say the power is coming in 500 rpm sooner, document it on a dyno. Since the power curve of an engine is directly related to cylinder air fill , which is a function of flow rate and cam timing, I find it very hard to believe that adding anything, even straight nitro, to the fuel tank will alter it.

At this point I'm going to have to call BS.

 

Look guys, I just started the damed thread, that doesn't mean I know everything or anything about additives, I just raised the question. It seems that you all know more about reseach than myself and good ideas I might add! With this in mind why not take your professed knowlege and start the reseach needed. You are involved in this thread right? It just makes sense that you are the guy's to do it. I am a self professed non-researcher except in my own professional field and I have run out of ideas on this subject, so have at it and I wish you luck. I hope you have the sack to stand up to the flamers and really find something definitive and explore the possibilities.
Some of you want data and as I have already stated, I am not interested in converting the non-believer only in the discussion of the subject matter. If you truly want data go a collect it yourself as I cannot do it for you. Answers? go do the research!