Really, acetone?

[gteclass]

I have not looked into the surface tension specs. Where did you get those? Are they for pure gasoline or are they from a specific oil companies MSDS on the gasoline they sell in the pump with all the additives? The surface tension claim comes from the sources that i listed in my original post. Also, I have seen many chemistry experiments yeild physical property changes that were not in any way averages of the properties of the components of the formula.

Also, where did you get this most cars burn 98% of their fuel idea from. Is this including the large percentage that gets burned off in the catalytic converter?

If it does cause the fuel to burn quicker then the ecu will see any knock and retard the timing which doesnt really mean anything by itself about fuel economy. Timing is all about making the flame front hit the piston approximately 15degrees after TDC. If the flame front moves faster, this would be a good thing as long as it still reaches the piston at that point.

The car may immediately start adjusting, but it takes about 200 miles for fuel trims to stabilize and even when they do, any little change will cause it to adapt more. Thats at least a half a tank no matter what you drive before the ecu actually knows what its doing.

trikkonceptz's procedure definitely could have been improved by using 4 consecutive fill ups with each step and averaging the results ignoring the tank of gas that the ecu is in transition mode. I am conducting my own experiment right now using this method. Ill post the results as they come it.

Also, try comparing a 80s economy car... say a 1986 honda civic with say... a 2006 Honda Civic. Or how about a 1986 Toyota Corolla with a 2006 Toyota. Of course with a high end luxury car your not going to see great gas mileage in the 80s.

[markweatherill]

I suggest that a large proportion of fuel is *not* burned in the catalytic converter.

Otherwise when you removed the cat. on a car, as some people like to do, you'd either see fuel spraying out the exhaust or huge mpg gains.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by gteclass

I have not looked into the surface tension specs. Where did you get those? Are they for pure gasoline or are they from a specific oil companies MSDS on the gasoline they sell in the pump with all the additives?

This is where I got my information on the surface tension of gasoline.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mats05037.htm
This source says gasoline has a surface tension of 20
http://www.corkind.com/ttn/cttn_12_9...ace_Energy.pdf

An exact number cannot be pinned down because there are different formulas, mixtures, etc for gas and even then the mixtures may be adjusted seasonally.

On page 1 is a breakdown of gasoline's components by weight
http://www.jdm-inc.com/files/Gasolin...ventional).pdf

The surface tension claim comes from the sources that i listed in my original post. Also, I have seen many chemistry experiments yeild physical property changes that were not in any way averages of the properties of the components of the formula.

According to part 4 of this analysis that claim won't hold when mixing acetone and gasoline.
http://neubranderinc.com/blog/2007/0...oline-concept/
In this case the author could not find an exact value for gasoline and chose to use an average of the surface tension of gasoline's components.

Also, where did you get this most cars burn 98% of their fuel idea from. Is this including the large percentage that gets burned off in the catalytic converter?

This information I got from a mechanic a couple years ago. However I did find an article on motor scooters which don't have to meet the strict emissions levels cars do and don't have catalytic converters. A 1968 2 stroke scooter emits 0.49% unburned hydrocarbons. A more modern 2 stroke scooter emits 0.11% unburned hydrocarbons. A modern 4 stroke emits 0.0168% unburned hydrocarbons. To get the percentage of unburned fuel I think we need to multiply these values by the stoichiometric fuel ratio of 14.7 for gasoline engines. So that results in 7.2% , 1.6%, and 0.25% of the fuel left unburned respectively. Granted these are motor scooters and not car engines however the budget for developing car engines is much greater than the budget for developing motor scooters. Also the technology employed to burn fuel efficiently and completely is far more advanced in a car engine than it is in a motor scooter. From this data I think it is safe to say cars burn 98% of their fuel.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867

Note: I think the author has CO2 confused with CO emissions

If it does cause the fuel to burn quicker then the ecu will see any knock and retard the timing which doesnt really mean anything by itself about fuel economy. Timing is all about making the flame front hit the piston approximately 15degrees after TDC. If the flame front moves faster, this would be a good thing as long as it still reaches the piston at that point.

An engine that has its timing retarded produces less power per unit of fuel and thus runs less efficiently.

The car may immediately start adjusting, but it takes about 200 miles for fuel trims to stabilize and even when they do, any little change will cause it to adapt more. Thats at least a half a tank no matter what you drive before the ecu actually knows what its doing.

trikkonceptz's procedure definitely could have been improved by using 4 consecutive fill ups with each step and averaging the results ignoring the tank of gas that the ecu is in transition mode. I am conducting my own experiment right now using this method. Ill post the results as they come it.

Also, try comparing a 80s economy car... say a 1986 honda civic with say... a 2006 Honda Civic. Or how about a 1986 Toyota Corolla with a 2006 Toyota. Of course with a high end luxury car your not going to see great gas mileage in the 80s.

I thought I might spend a moment debunking the source of this myth. If you look at the different versions by the originator of this myth you will see that he claims to have 50 years of data on this.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s/additive.htm

However despite having 50 years of data his acetone ratios change wildly in the first 6 months and he claims that the ratios must be precise. He claims that he isn't in this for profit and he is giving these findings to the world for free. This was a half truth, at the time he was selling scan gauges for people to try and verify this myth. He is essentially pulling off the classic scam of giving away a fake treasure map and selling you a shovel.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Mythbusters results on acetone as a fuel additive: Busted.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode53

[gteclass]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

This information I got from a mechanic a couple years ago. However I did find an article on motor scooters which don't have to meet the strict emissions levels cars do and don't have catalytic converters. A 1968 2 stroke scooter emits 0.49% unburned hydrocarbons. A more modern 2 stroke scooter emits 0.11% unburned hydrocarbons. A modern 4 stroke emits 0.0168% unburned hydrocarbons. To get the percentage of unburned fuel I think we need to multiply these values by the stoichiometric fuel ratio of 14.7 for gasoline engines. So that results in 7.2% , 1.6%, and 0.25% of the fuel left unburned respectively. Granted these are motor scooters and not car engines however the budget for developing car engines is much greater than the budget for developing motor scooters. Also the technology employed to burn fuel efficiently and completely is far more advanced in a car engine than it is in a motor scooter. From this data I think it is safe to say cars burn 98% of their fuel.

Willamette Week | “Polluter Scooters” | August 9th, 2006

Note: I think the author has CO2 confused with CO emissions


An engine that has its timing retarded produces less power per unit of fuel and thus runs less efficiently.




I thought I might spend a moment debunking the source of this myth. If you look at the different versions by the originator of this myth you will see that he claims to have 50 years of data on this.
Internet Archive Wayback Machine

However despite having 50 years of data his acetone ratios change wildly in the first 6 months and he claims that the ratios must be precise. He claims that he isn't in this for profit and he is giving these findings to the world for free. This was a half truth, at the time he was selling scan gauges for people to try and verify this myth. He is essentially pulling off the classic scam of giving away a fake treasure map and selling you a shovel.

So by measuring the HC in the exhaust gasses, how are you measuring the ammount of fuel lost to blowby during the compression stroke? It ends up in the oil. Perhaps you should track down those scooters with their 1 or 2 cylinder engines that have probably proportional blowby for thier size and measure the gasoline content of the oil.

Timing is a bit more complex than that , more timing only means more efficient if the engine is retarded to begin with. You add timing if the flame front hits the piston late, you take timing if the flame front hits the piston early. When it hits it at the "right" time which is about 15 degrees past TDC then you are at ideal timing.

Maybe, just maybe, his acetone ratio changed so much in the first 6 months for experimental purposes, maybe he just didnt have the ratio correct. I have seen a couple mpg improvement so far and im not being precise really. Also, is he saying he will give you the treasure map with the purchase of a shovel, no, he gives you the treasure map and if you feel it looks like a probable location for treasure he just happens to also sell shovels. The device he is selling is useful with or without the acetone.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by gteclass

So by measuring the HC in the exhaust gasses, how are you measuring the ammount of fuel lost to blowby during the compression stroke? It ends up in the oil. Perhaps you should track down those scooters with their 1 or 2 cylinder engines that have probably proportional blowby for thier size and measure the gasoline content of the oil.

Two of these scooters were two strokes. Any blow by during the compression stroke would be mixed with the next intake charge. This would totally negate any effect of fuel slipping past the rings. Similarly in a four stroke car engine, the gas fumes in the blow by get sucked up into the intake via the PCV and burned that way. Otherwise if just one percent of the fuel slipped by the rings we would probably have about a gallon of gas diluting our oil when we changed it.

If your trying to imply that acetone some how magically keeps fuel from getting past the rings I suggest you try a different approach. This argument won't get you anywhere.

Timing is a bit more complex than that , more timing only means more efficient if the engine is retarded to begin with. You add timing if the flame front hits the piston late, you take timing if the flame front hits the piston early. When it hits it at the "right" time which is about 15 degrees past TDC then you are at ideal timing.

Maybe, just maybe, his acetone ratio changed so much in the first 6 months for experimental purposes, maybe he just didnt have the ratio correct.

If he says that its important to be very precise in the very beginning and he has been experimenting with this for more than 50 years, why would the latest 6 months of experimentation change his ratios so drastically? Typically people start with big changes and narrow in on an optimum amount by making little changes at the end. You would think after 50 years he would be making very very minor tweaks.

I have seen a couple mpg improvement so far and im not being precise really. Also, is he saying he will give you the treasure map with the purchase of a shovel, no, he gives you the treasure map and if you feel it looks like a probable location for treasure he just happens to also sell shovels. The device he is selling is useful with or without the acetone.

Not quite. He gives away a fake treasure map. People go follow the map and come back to him and say there is no treasure. He tells them that they can't dig it up by hand and they have to use a shovel. He sells them a shovel. people follow map and use shovel to dig. The people still don't find a treasure. The people wanted treasure and end up with a shovel they never wanted to buy. The only person with treasure is the scam artist selling the shovels.

[trikkonceptz]

Well Conn, you have put down alot of information on how my placebo (Acetone), does not work. To be honest, I picked up the tip from a fellow tuner that has been using it in his fuel for over 5 years, well before the gas crunch and he enjoyed the boost in mileage. I use it now religiously and I enjoy the boost in mileage.

No bit of scientific jabber will take away from the benefits my vehicle is seeing. And since I do not sell Acetone I have nothing to gain from promoting its use. Therefore bury yourself in inconclusive evidence and theories, while I enjoy exceeding my epa rating by insane amounts.

Hell, I paid $4.00 for the quart, which has lasted me well over 20 tanks so far and it should get me close to 32 tank fulls, divided by $4.00, its costing me pennies to fill with this stuff and I therefore react to it by saving myself 3 miles per gallon, 30 miles per tank lets say multiplied by 32, thats 960 miles of extra driving the $4.00 bought me. Real or not, it is my perception and if thats the price I have to pay then its justified.

I just wish that those who do not understand it would stop discouraging someone else from trying it.

[ConnClark]

There is more jabber on how it might work just for you trikkonceptz.

The placebo effect can play a role in real mileage improvements. Since how you drive plays a major role in mileage, mood of the driver has been identified as identified as a factor in fuel economy.

Happy content drivers are less likely to drive aggressively. Angry and frustrated drivers drive more aggressively. If you believe you are saving fuel by using acetone in your fuel and this makes you happy you may see real world improvements in mileage.

Beyond the placebo effect there is no scientific proof that acetone improves mileage.

Trust me I hate the draconian, oppressive, and unfair First,Second, and Third laws of thermodynamics as much as anyone. However I will live by these laws until someone finds a way to subvert or repeal them.

[trikkonceptz]

Funny thing though. For a moment lets assume it does nothing, has no effect. At least no one I know is claiming that it is detrimental other than it being a chemical you do not want in contact with your skin (Like Gas), or on the surface of your vehicle(Like gas).

SO basically we have found a chemical that blends with gasoline and does nothing to it at all, will combust in small quanities with no effect, will therefore burn off with no effect, thereby becoming no more than a phycological waste of money.

How many chemicals do you know of that can be mixed with gasoline to offer the same results? Meaning no results with no trace of its use?

Excluding Acetone, are there any chemicals to aid in the burning of fuel? No cleaners and deposit eliminators, aids to gasoline?

Because what we run on is not perfect, so therefore there has to a way to make it better than not using it. Obviously a question for chemical engineers, but as mythbusters say ... I still feel this one is plausible, and I only wish that Acetone in my tank would make me happier or less agressive and more prone to better driving.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by trikkonceptz

Funny thing though. For a moment lets assume it does nothing, has no effect. At least no one I know is claiming that it is detrimental other than it being a chemical you do not want in contact with your skin (Like Gas), or on the surface of your vehicle(Like gas).

Acetone weakens plastics and is detrimental to rubber. Many fuel system components are made of plastics and rubber that are sensitive to acetone. One example in particular is a diaphragm type fuel pump.

SO basically we have found a chemical that blends with gasoline and does nothing to it at all, will combust in small quanities with no effect, will therefore burn off with no effect, thereby becoming no more than a phycological waste of money.

How many chemicals do you know of that can be mixed with gasoline to offer the same results? Meaning no results with no trace of its use?

A few come to mind such as alcohol.

Excluding Acetone,

Acetone has been excluded.

are there any chemicals to aid in the burning of fuel? No cleaners and deposit eliminators, aids to gasoline?

Not a chemical per say, but an element. Platinum will act as a catalyst. Unfortunately mixing it with gasoline has not provided any real improvements in combustion efficiency or emissions according to the EPA.

Because what we run on is not perfect, so therefore there has to a way to make it better than not using it. Obviously a question for chemical engineers,

Incidentally I discussed this with a chemical engineer. He said adding acetone to gasoline was bunk too.

but as mythbusters say ... I still feel this one is plausible, and I only wish that Acetone in my tank would make me happier or less agressive and more prone to better driving.

Actually if you paid attention to a previous post, Mythbusters busted Acetone. Perhaps quoting the phrase " I reject your reality, and substitute my own." would be more appropriate.