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 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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

(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.

 

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.

 

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)"?

 

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.