FFI (Cont'd.)

[artessa]

Well, seems like Tony is right again. I have to more precise, that has been obvious to me before but nevertheless I have the opportunity to correct..

On the other hand if you would have studied the documents earlier provided you would actually find that the readings I refer to as zero are not actually zero. The authority chooses to use only 1/100 of a percent in there test apparatuses and the records is done rounded up to the nearest 1/10 of a percent.

Now if you compare the instruments used in the different occasions you will find the instrument used by the injection specialist with better specs. It also delivers reading within a 1/1000 of a percent. Though I consider it ridiculous to even use these extremely small parts of a reading there is of course a possibility that others consider them as of a value.

To me this is just another indicator that the engine is performing better.

I know there is no way that I could produce proof of a certain economy improvement But I try to make a list of indicators.

1 No, or almost no traces of unburned raw fuel (HC) in the exhausts. This must have been converted to kinetic energy or at least heat.
2. No, or almost no indicators of an uncompleted combustion (CO) This gas is a result of a combustion poorly done and still contains chemical bounded energy. If the circumstances of the combustion would have permitted this would have ended as CO2. It is an indicator that there has been more time in better combustion environment (heat and pressure) available for this process to conclude. If the combustion is terminated at an earlier point and the enclosed gases is permitted to expand without any further combustion taken place then the expansion of the gases will cool them down a lot more before the exhaust valves opens and definitively stops further expansion, hence delivering more push to the car.

3. The exhausts pipe temperature (measured at the same surrounding temperature) at the same precise road trip measured BaB follows a pattern witch gives support to the pill. This is very rough, I know that but at least it serves as an indicator that exhaust gas is in any case does not increase.

4. I can race the car with another known one and I can race against the clock before, after and before and measure the difference. It follows a pattern and the acceleration increase is easily measured and that indicates that the torque of the engine is increased witch is nice but actually does not proof anything about economy; it just gives support to an earlier completed combustion.

5. If I use all personal fuel consumption methods and add up all possible error margins, +- to an unfavourable calculation they still does not indicate an increase in consumption.

Ok lets see what kind of arguments exist that actually would indicate that my “indicators” does not actually support my theory but on the contrary shows nothing.

[fuelsaving]

I know there is no way that I could produce proof of a certain economy improvement But I try to make a list of indicators.

1 No, or almost no traces of unburned raw fuel (HC) in the exhausts. This must have been converted to kinetic energy or at least heat.

2. No, or almost no indicators of an uncompleted combustion (CO) This gas is a result of a combustion poorly done and still contains chemical bounded energy. If the circumstances of the combustion would have permitted this would have ended as CO2. It is an indicator that there has been more time in better combustion environment (heat and pressure) available for this process to conclude. If the combustion is terminated at an earlier point and the enclosed gases is permitted to expand without any further combustion taken place then the expansion of the gases will cool them down a lot more before the exhaust valves opens and definitively stops further expansion, hence delivering more push to the car.

3. The exhausts pipe temperature (measured at the same surrounding temperature) at the same precise road trip measured BaB follows a pattern witch gives support to the pill. This is very rough, I know that but at least it serves as an indicator that exhaust gas is in any case does not increase.

4. I can race the car with another known one and I can race against the clock before, after and before and measure the difference. It follows a pattern and the acceleration increase is easily measured and that indicates that the torque of the engine is increased witch is nice but actually does not proof anything about economy; it just gives support to an earlier completed combustion.

5. If I use all personal fuel consumption methods and add up all possible error margins, +- to an unfavourable calculation they still does not indicate an increase in consumption.

Ok lets see what kind of arguments exist that actually would indicate that my “indicators” does not actually support my theory but on the contrary shows nothing.

1, 2: Even in the "before" condition, if you calculate the chemical energy in the exhaust (CO, HC) you find it is a tiny fraction - maybe 3% - of the incoming fuel. So even if the reduction is entirely due to more complete combustion, that is still no evidence for a large improvement in economy.

Plus, tailpipe emissions are extremely sensitive to how well the catalyst is working, and this can be highly variable (eg with temperature), especially on a car as old as yours. Better catalyst efficiency says nothing about engine efficiency, of course.

3: As you say, a very rough measure - with lots of room for error

4: Quite possibly so. The MPG-Cap does definitely increase octane rating (hardly surprising, given it was apparently originally intended as a lead replacement) and on a car such as your that has knock sensors, this improves performance. But not economy!

5: As you yourself admit, the potential errors mean that your on-road measurements do not prove an economy benefit (even if they do suggest one)

[artessa]

Need to be more explicative, as usually.
I do not measure tailpipe exhaust temperature, I took for granted that it would be obvious.
I explain in detail how I do. This is something that I have done on several cars and it does not matter weather it is catalyzed or not. On the exhaust manifold I attach 2 separate PT-100 high range sensors.
I use 2 because I want to se that they behave the same. I don’t actually measure the exact temperature
Because I connect it to a very simple circuit and measure them with the same instrument witch does not indicate an exact temperature but instead I get a tension reading. As this transmitter is not lineal it is difficult to se the exact temperature change but what is more of an importance is the pattern. I can se if the temperature changes to any direction and a certain magnitude,
Depending on the engine type I attach the sensors in different manners but on the BMW I attached them where the 3 separate exhaust pipes from each half of the engine are joined.
If you want to explain the decrease in emissions with the theory that the Cat. Is working better in higher temperature (witch is absolutely right) then you have a problem considering that the Cat. Is actually less hot when using the pill because the exhaust that goes in to it are colder. Then of course you could eventually want to explain this with a supposed assumption that the exhaust gases actually contain more HC and CO witch would eventually heat it up more. Well this is nothing that I can find any support for because ALL cars I have tried the pill on that has not had a Cat. has clearly shoved drastic decrease in these pollutant.

Then I do not believe that a 0.9 degree in octane increase would have any significant importance.

The pill to me has got nothing to do with lead substitution, I do not understand were that comes from.

[TheBest]

Acctually you can remove the CAT when using the pills/boost as it has no function due to the lower temperature.

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

If you want to explain the decrease in emissions with the theory that the Cat. Is working better in higher temperature (witch is absolutely right) then you have a problem considering that the Cat. Is actually less hot when using the pill because the exhaust that goes in to it are colder.

Sorry, I didn't mean that I thought the MPG-Cap caused a general increase in exhaust temperature, but simply that the cat temperature (and hence emissions) depends strongly on how the car had been driven in the 10-15 minutes before the test. The proper EPA-type testing gets round this problem by always starting with a 12 hour "soak" at 25C.

The pill to me has got nothing to do with lead substitution, I do not understand were that comes from.

It's from FFI's own documents - http://www.myffi.biz/en/pdf/EPA_registr ... o_pkge.pdf

[fuelsaving]

Acctually you can remove the CAT when using the pills/boost as it has no function due to the lower temperature.

Huh? You have to be joking! Are you really claiming that the MPG-Cap drops exhaust temperatures from (say) 800C to 300C?

If so, then the overall effect will be a massive increase in emissions, not to mention illumination of the Check Engine light because the catalyst will be diagnosed as faulty.

[artessa]

800ºC ???????

We are dealing with standard cars, not pro stock.

[TheBest]

Looks like the engineer needs an explanation.

When not using the caps/boost (here up north we use boost, not caps) the fuel isn´t ready burned when the next stroke starts. Therefore the exhaust temperature is high, approx. 450 degrees C. And you can see this, take off the exhaust manifolds, start the engine, and you will see flames coming out off the engine, and these flames increases the temerature in the exhaust system and makes the cat work, as it should.

When using the caps/boost, all the fuel burns ready in the combustion chamber before the next stroke. The results are no flames into the exhaustsystem, which lowers the temperature to approx. 350 degrees C. And we all know that with this temp. the cat doesn´t work.

I´m going to send you pictures of this on your email, makes it easier to understand. (well, I reckon you do understand, but you have to dissagree not to lose face to those who believes in you).

(I hope you understand my english, as I´m a Norwegian).

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

800ºC ???????

We are dealing with standard cars, not pro stock.

Oh yes. On a normal petrol engine, exhaust gas temperatures well over 800C are common at full load (sometimes as high as 900). At light load the temperatures are lower, of course, but still 500-600 is typical under normal driving conditions. I don't have proof to hand, but could probably find it if you are unconvinced.

Diesel engines are a lot lower, but I believe up to 800 is still possible.

[fuelsaving]

When not using the caps/boost (here up north we use boost, not caps) the fuel isn´t ready burned when the next stroke starts. Therefore the exhaust temperature is high, approx. 450 degrees C. And you can see this, take off the exhaust manifolds, start the engine, and you will see flames coming out off the engine, and these flames increases the temerature in the exhaust system and makes the cat work, as it should.

When using the caps/boost, all the fuel burns ready in the combustion chamber before the next stroke. The results are no flames into the exhaustsystem, which lowers the temperature to approx. 350 degrees C. And we all know that with this temp. the cat doesn´t work.

We are talking petrol (gasoline) engines, right? In that case the temperatures you quote are probably accurate at idle or very light load running, but certainly not when the engine is properly under load (ie driving the car along). Yes, you are quite correct that a faster or earlier burn lowers exhaust temperature, but that is totally different to a claim that under all running conditions the exhaust temperature is below 350C. Do you have pictures of flames (or not) when the engine is doing 6000 rpm full throttle?

[artessa]

800 degrees in a diesel engine that is not faulty, no way!

Normally we never exceed 450 degrees but occasionally up to 500 under very special circumstances.

Of course a petrol engine at 6000 rpm/full throttle will have temperatures a lot higher but once again, for a very limited amount of time.
When I try cars I keep the driving (test) conditions where the exhausts are kept below 500 degrees and
that is in the case of a bigger engine enough to push the car at 120.

The cat needs some HC or CO included in the exhaust otherwise it will not reach an adequate working temperature.
I have by now tried so many cars without a cat. and in many cases the CO goes down to one tenth of a percent and the hydrocarbons reaches ridicules low limits as well. These values by themselves are fine for a pass as if they would have belonged to a car equipped with a cat.
The inside of a cat reaches temperature to aprox. 2000 degrees Celsius and to be able to reach that temperature it need a propellant witch in our case comes from the residual energy contained in the exhaust gases. I really don’t know if the quantity of chemical bounded energy in the exhaust gases that contain 40 to 50 ppm HC and 0.1% of CO is enough to heat the cat. and if the temperature of the exhaust then are below 300 degrees(witch they are at idle with mpg ) I do not understand how we could get a proper work done by the cat.
When we test our cars we do it at no or very limited load. First at idle and then with 2500rpm. It is a pity that we can’t break them and analyze the gases at least at half load. I suppose it could implicate that some cars does not outstand that and suffer a failure and that the test facility could risk to be claimed responsibilities for that .
There fore it is as Tony says of a vital importance prior to a test how the car has been driven for the latest 15 minutes to the test. This is something that is absolutely necessary when you will perform B-A-B tests with cat. cars but not that important in the case where the car lacks a cat.
This is for our own benefit important but the governmental test facility does not care as long as the car presents values below limits. This is on the other hand not fare because when you bring your car to this test you are left on a parking lot for maybe up to an hour prior to test and by then the cat will have cooled down and lost effect.

[fuelsaving]

800 degrees in a diesel engine that is not faulty, no way! Normally we never exceed 450 degrees but occasionally up to 500 under very special circumstances.

I'm talking about a modern very high output turbocharged high-speed diesel, at absolutely maximum load and speed. And I'm talking about gas temp right after the exhaust valves, before it goes throught the turbo.

The cat needs some HC or CO included in the exhaust otherwise it will not reach an adequate working temperature. The inside of a cat reaches temperature to aprox. 2000 degrees Celsius and to be able to reach that temperature it need a propellant witch in our case comes from the residual energy contained in the exhaust gases. I really don’t know if the quantity of chemical bounded energy in the exhaust gases that contain 40 to 50 ppm HC and 0.1% of CO is enough to heat the cat. and if the temperature of the exhaust then are below 300 degrees(witch they are at idle with mpg ) I do not understand how we could get a proper work done by the cat.

No, nothing like that hot. I have done a lot of test work on cars with thermocouples pre-cat, in-cat and post-cat, and anything above 1000C will rapidly destroy the catalyst. In fact the exotherm (the temp rise through the cat) is generally quite small (<50C) as the HC and CO in a normal engine exhaust represents less than 2% of the input fuel. What gets the cat hot is primarily the temperature of the input gas.

You're quite right that, at temperatures below 300C, the cat will tend to go out. On early catalysed cars (say 1993-1996) this could indeed happen at idle, but more modern cars use various techniques (eg putting the cat very close to the engine) to avoid this.

[artessa]

What would be the estimated lifetime of the modern diesel at maximum output at maximum speed?

What conclusions ought to be made where there is no temperature rise over the cat?

[fuelsaving]

What would be the estimated lifetime of the modern diesel at maximum output at maximum speed?

A few hundred hours, I guess

What conclusions ought to be made where there is no temperature rise over the cat?

That the chemical energy (unburnt fuel) in the exhaust is very small. This is exactly the case with any modern car in good condition, except under special circumstances (misfire, initial light-off)

[artessa]

Here we seem to agree completely. But what do you mean with “initial light-off”?

A modern car in good conditions is very unlikely to misfire, and if does it is not in good condition.

So next question is when an old car with very high odometer reading has no temperature increase over the Cat. what could be a reasonable explanation?

[fuelsaving]

But what do you mean with “initial light-off”?

I mean the first minute or so after start, when the engine is still running (relatively) "dirtily" and the cat is heating up. Sometimes then there is enough chemical activity to give a substantial temperature rise.

So next question is when an old car with very high odometer reading has no temperature increase over the Cat. what could be a reasonable explanation?

That means it is in good condition, with relatively low levels of HC and CO in the exhaust. As should be the case with any cat-equipped car that isn't in some way faulty or very badly worn.

[artessa]

So, what is to consider as "relatively low levels of HC and CO in the exhaust" in actual units (ppm, %) ?

[TheBest]

Artessa. In my car, a Volvo with a B230F engine, the CO is 0.0 and the HC is 9 ppm, both with and without the cat. And the consumption went from 1.1 liters per 10 km to 0.91 liter per 10 km, and thats when using the MPG-Boost (the liquid).
So with this product the cat has no effect. Most people thinks that the product is an additive, thats not the fact, its a catalyst.

Have a nice day.

/TheBest

[wserra]

Playing "20 Questions" with Tony is all very interesting, but avoids the real question: when is this long-awaited "proof" going to show up? You know: Millbrook? The Competition Bureau? TUV? You guys have been promising it on this site - an avowed skeptical one - for at least nine months. God only knows how long it's been promised on the true believer sites.

If you look at the other forums on this site, you will see that it is absolutely characteristic of scams to only promise proof when they have to - and then to mischaracterize, backpedal, make excuses, ignore questions and change the subject whenever they are called on their promise. Does this pattern look familiar?

And why should anyone bother with your puny 7-14% fuel economy increase anyway? After all, there is a product out there which guarantees at least a 50% increase. Well, no, they don't offer any proof either, just the same type of "testimonials" you guys do. But, if you're going to buy snake oil, at least buy the one made from better snakes.

[fuelsaving]

So, what is to consider as "relatively low levels of HC and CO in the exhaust" in actual units (ppm, %) ?

Well, here's a simple example: 1000 ppm HC means that about 2% of the input fuel is emerging unburnt from the exhaust. Anything less than that would give a temperature rise across the catalyst that is pretty much undetectable with off-the-shelf equipment in road driving conditions.