10 to 25% better MPG, with 2 or 3 ounces of Acetone per 10 gals of gas

On May 6, 9:42 pm, SnoMan > wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 00:33:46 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:
>
> >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

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

In article .com>,
EdV > wrote:
>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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On May 9, 6:35 am, EdV > wrote:
> <<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?

On May 10, 2:44 am, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク > wrote:
> 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

"Old Wolf" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 9, 6:35 am, EdV > wrote:
>> <<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?

Gee, I don't wear nail polish.

Jeff

"EdV" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>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

"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news:w7l0i.6283$83.3236@trndny08...
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 23:00:07 -0400, Drunken Driver wrote:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>Max wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
>
> 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...
>
>
.... and here I was thinking that the hoods were designed to minimize wind
resistance....
:-)
Tomes

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:49:19 -0700, Old Wolf wrote:

> On May 10, 2:44 am, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク > wrote:
>> 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

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 9, 8:08 pm, "Tomes" > wrote:
> "EdV" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >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

Ahhhhhhhh Not Plexiglass, I hope.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> No, it's not. You were doing so well in the first paragraph, and
> then you
> have to make up some baloney like this. You just made that up, and
> it's
> plain as day. Here's the truth - the introduction of additives into
> gasoline is a universal occurance. It happens to all the gasoline
> you can
> buy. Don't be crazy.

I think Mike might actually be right here. The EPA reglates unleaded
gasoline and has to approve what can and can't be added by refiniries
and distributors.

From http://www.epa.gov/otaq/additive.htm

"The Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to regulate fuels
and fuel additives in order to reduce the risk to public health from
exposure to their emissions. The regulations at 40 CFR Part 79
(from the U.S. Government Printing Office) require that each
manufacturer or importer of gasoline, diesel fuel, or a fuel additive,
have its product registered by EPA prior to its introduction into
commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of
the product and certain technical, marketing and health-effects
information. This allows EPA to identify the likely combustion and
evaporative emissions. In certain cases, health-effects testing is
required for a product to maintain its registration or before a new
product can be registered. EPA uses this information to identify
products whose emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to public
health, warranting further investigation and/or regulation."

Of course, after you buy the gasoline, the EPA has little say in what
you can add to it.

Ed