Iconoclast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,786
Ah, but I specifically mentioned DISTRIBUTOR degrees, not CRANK degrees. And as you say, the distributor spins at half the rate of the engine.teddygrahams said:
Iconoclast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,786
Well, if air resistance increases linearly with speed, then if you doubled your speed you'd use twice as much fuel, but you'd only have to drive for half as long. So, the amount of fuel used in (say) 100 miles would be the same. At least I think that's right.69dodge said:
Iconoclast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,786
You're quite correct Iamme, which reminds me of the Carb Spacer debate. If you own an old style V8 engine with a 4 barrel carb on top, you can buy carb spacers that go between the carb and the inlet manifold, and it's nothing more than a piece of aluminium 1/4 or 1/2 inches thick. Now, the interesting thing is, if you are tuning an engine on an engine dyno adding a carb spacer may give you 1 or 2 extra horsepower, or you may lose a couple of horsepower, or there may be no effect at all. Even if you get 2 engines that are essentially the same, the effect of the spacer is unpredictable.Iamme said:
This unpredictability is a result of the fact that fluid dynamics is really weird science. When we port cylinder heads, we still use experimentation on a flow bench to determine which modifications will result in more air flow, we don't have a way to determine a priori what our mods will do, the flow is too complex to analyse.
So, putting this Tornado thing in the airstream may actually increase power or efficiency for some specific engine since it alters the way the air flows, but that the manufacturer makes a blanket claim that it will have X% increase in economy is not reasonable.
davefoc
Philosopher
Iamme,
You mentioned earlier in this thread that you were considering buying one and testing it yourself.
If all you are looking for is a 10% improvement in mileage, I think you will find it very difficult to verify such a small improvement.
I regularly monitor the mileage in my own car and see a greater variation than that from tank to tank. The kind of driving I do is quite similar from tank to tank but still variations in driving speed or the ratio of freeway to non-freeway driving may be enough to explain the differences. There are a lot of other factors that might contribute to mileage variation from differences in the gas level when the tank is full, humidity, tire pressure variations, oil level, outdoor temperature.
The point is that when Tornado offers a money back guarantee, they are implying that it is possible for an individual to evaluate the efficacy of their device. I don't think the average person can actually detect the small gain in mileage expected. That is not to say that some people with care, expertise and patience might not be able to reliably detect a 10% improvement in fuel economy, but I think most wouldn't. I think part of their scheme actually takes advantage of the difficulty of monitoring fuel economy by the average person to trick people into believing that there is an improvement in fuel economy when there is none.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I installed an electronic ignition system on a 1967 Plymouth Barracuda I owned. I carefully monitored the mileage and thought that I was detecting about a 10% mileage reduction, but I wasn't sure because of all the other variables that might have explained it. The thing that finally convinced me was a cross country drive. The driving was almost identical from tank to tank and in the case of the electronic ignition system I could turn it on and off when I wanted to so that I was able to compare the mileage from tank to tank by switching between on and off.
You mentioned earlier in this thread that you were considering buying one and testing it yourself.
If all you are looking for is a 10% improvement in mileage, I think you will find it very difficult to verify such a small improvement.
I regularly monitor the mileage in my own car and see a greater variation than that from tank to tank. The kind of driving I do is quite similar from tank to tank but still variations in driving speed or the ratio of freeway to non-freeway driving may be enough to explain the differences. There are a lot of other factors that might contribute to mileage variation from differences in the gas level when the tank is full, humidity, tire pressure variations, oil level, outdoor temperature.
The point is that when Tornado offers a money back guarantee, they are implying that it is possible for an individual to evaluate the efficacy of their device. I don't think the average person can actually detect the small gain in mileage expected. That is not to say that some people with care, expertise and patience might not be able to reliably detect a 10% improvement in fuel economy, but I think most wouldn't. I think part of their scheme actually takes advantage of the difficulty of monitoring fuel economy by the average person to trick people into believing that there is an improvement in fuel economy when there is none.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I installed an electronic ignition system on a 1967 Plymouth Barracuda I owned. I carefully monitored the mileage and thought that I was detecting about a 10% mileage reduction, but I wasn't sure because of all the other variables that might have explained it. The thing that finally convinced me was a cross country drive. The driving was almost identical from tank to tank and in the case of the electronic ignition system I could turn it on and off when I wanted to so that I was able to compare the mileage from tank to tank by switching between on and off.
teddygrahams
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 276
Iconoclast you were right about the distributor RPM, but davefoc failed to copy it and I quoted his post.
About the tuning intake manifold, yes that is what I meant.
According to the EPA (www.epa.gov), the energy content of gasoline itself varies a few percent and up to 5% seasonally. They give quite a few tips for increasing mileage.
So, if you want to maximize your mileage, just buy gas when it has above average energy !
About the tuning intake manifold, yes that is what I meant.
According to the EPA (www.epa.gov), the energy content of gasoline itself varies a few percent and up to 5% seasonally. They give quite a few tips for increasing mileage.
So, if you want to maximize your mileage, just buy gas when it has above average energy !
Iconoclast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,786
OK, well it seems the latest BMW 7 Series Engines use continuously variable length intake runners.teddygrahams said:
Yes, the time is half, but the distance is the same, and energy has to do with distance. Twice the air resistance and the same distance require twice the energy, therefore twice the gasoline.
Pardon the nitpicking. I realize this statement of yours was just an offhand remark in a long and otherwise excellent post. (I'm just ticked off because you left out my lowly BBD from your list of carbs.
)MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
C'mon folks! This is supposed to be a skeptic community! That thing is 100% pure BS. Those things are magnets. Neodyne is a permanent magnet material, and since the thing just sits there with no power applied, it can only be a permanent magnet.
Permanent magnets do not affect fuel because it is not conductive.
Car manufacturers are spending billions to design high-mileage cars these days. A 3litre (100km on 3 litres of diesel) VW Lupo is sold at a much higher price than the gas version. Do you think they would not be using this thing if it could give them even 5%??
Mileage tests made on the road are not useful for comparing before and after fuel consumption. The conditions are simply too different. Only running an engine in a test-bench will yield results reproducible enough to see single-digit percentages.
Hans
Iconoclast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,786
You may be right Dodge.69dodge said:
Hey, anything made by Carter is fine with me. For the last V8 I owned I bought a new style AFB and a jetting kit (same carb as the Edelbrock ones). Lovely, 1 minute to change metering rods, 5 minutes to change jets, and all without spilling any gas unlike those ungodly Holleys.69dodge said:Pardon the nitpicking. I realize this statement of yours was just an offhand remark in a long and otherwise excellent post. (I'm just ticked off because you left out my lowly BBD from your list of carbs.
teddygrahams
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 276
ceptimus said:
But according to the EPA, energy content is lower in Winter due to winter formulas. So, you must mean buy it on a cold Summer's morning.
Hans, most of this discussion is about the Tornado, not the magnet thingy.
_Q_---The Tornado WAS tested on a dyno. So it is more than some anecote from some person. They showed the dyno test done before and after. (They ran the vehicle on the dyno to a certain rpm. Then they went out and stuck in the Tornado and reran the test to the same rpm.) No other alterations were made to the test vehicle. They showed the horsepower meter go up by about 20. It went from about 200 to 220 on that car.
teddygrahams
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 276
Iamme said:
I'm looking at the test posted on their web page. The lowest MPG increase is 2. How, if 2 is the lowest, can the Average MPG increase be 1-2 ? Is that what you are referring to as non-anecdotal data ? It's a non-sensical conclusion from the data listed. Where did 1-2 come from ?
Iamme said:
lamme,
To be clear, I don't think that I've ever claimed that the Tornado people were trying to push their product based only on "some anecdote from some person", or that they've never claimed to dyno test their product.
My comments on not putting much stock in one person's anecdotal claims were in response to your comments about the prospect of trying one yourself and then (possibly) having the pleasure of telling us all how great it was. I suggested that you should just be happy with all of the money you save - one individual's personal testimony just wouldn't convince.
Now, the talk about their dyno tests brings a question to mind. Do you really, honestly believe these people?
By "these people", maybe I should include a number of magnetic fuel treatment folks who also claim to have real tests from real labs to demonstrate how effective their products are. Do you believe them, too?
If you do believe any or all of this stuff, then why aren't you using the products?
Word of honor, I'm still trying to figure out if you're genuinely serious about this stuff, or if you're just yanking our collective chain.
_Q_
davefoc
Philosopher
!!!Warning completely unrelated digression follows!!!!
Roger asked:
You win the prize. Way to go.
That is one of the most spectacular places that I have ever been. I walked up on a day that I was suffering from a cold and was completely exhausted when I got to the top. After sleeping for an hour or so I got up and walked around, when I turned and saw this scene. The avatar doesn't do it justice.
The people you see in the scene are standing on a rock protrusion that is about 3,000 feet above the valley floor. There is a guy in that little tent like structure that you see in the picture. He crawled down through the rocks around it and was laying on his belly looking straight down to the valley below.
Roger asked:
You win the prize. Way to go.
That is one of the most spectacular places that I have ever been. I walked up on a day that I was suffering from a cold and was completely exhausted when I got to the top. After sleeping for an hour or so I got up and walked around, when I turned and saw this scene. The avatar doesn't do it justice.
The people you see in the scene are standing on a rock protrusion that is about 3,000 feet above the valley floor. There is a guy in that little tent like structure that you see in the picture. He crawled down through the rocks around it and was laying on his belly looking straight down to the valley below.
davefoc
Philosopher
!!Warning another completely unrelated digression follows:
davefoc
Philosopher
Iamme said:
I couldn't find a report of this test on the internet. I know it is part of their advertising, but without a report it's a pretty useless claim.
How many different engines did they try? What was the spread of the data? Was the test actually done by an independent body? How did different RPM's effect the horsepower gain? Did some engines experience a loss of horsepower?
I know it's been said before here, but one obvious point is that if there was a simple well known gadget that reliably boosted horsepower by 10% one would expect it to be widely used in racing applications. Is it?
I watched part of one of their infomercials this morning. The infomercial strongly promotes the idea that anecdotal evidence is useful in evaluating the device. There was an alledged radio talk show host promoting the idea that his listeners had convinced him of the efficacy of this device. Whether there is any benefit or not to the device may be an open question, but promoting the idea that the average individual is going to be able to reliably detect a 1 to 2 mpg improvement is just crap. If there is value to their device it is strange that they would promote it using such a devious approach.
I couldn't find a report of this test on the internet. I know it is part of their advertising, but without a report it's a pretty useless claim.
How many different engines did they try? What was the spread of the data? Was the test actually done by an independent body? How did different RPM's effect the horsepower gain? Did some engines experience a loss of horsepower?
I know it's been said before here, but one obvious point is that if there was a simple well known gadget that reliably boosted horsepower by 10% one would expect it to be widely used in racing applications. Is it?
I watched part of one of their infomercials this morning. The infomercial strongly promotes the idea that anecdotal evidence is useful in evaluating the device. There was an alledged radio talk show host promoting the idea that his listeners had convinced him of the efficacy of this device. Whether there is any benefit or not to the device may be an open question, but promoting the idea that the average individual is going to be able to reliably detect a 1 to 2 mpg improvement is just crap. If there is value to their device it is strange that they would promote it using such a devious approach.
davefoc
Philosopher
Iconoclast said:
Son of a gun, I was sure that Dodge was wrong and had basically accepted Iconoclast's view on this for years.
Alas, it looks to me as if Dodge is right also.
If the movement of an object is resisted by a constant force while it is being moved the energy required to move it is F x D.
If the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the speed (F=kS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the the speed. E = kSD.
if the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the square of the speed (F=kSS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the square of the speed. E=kSSD.
edited to add.
The effect on the power required to move the object goes up at one higher power than the energy required to move the object.
for a constant force:
P=kS
for a force proportional to the speed:
P=kSS
for a force proportional to the square of the speed:
P=kSSS
Son of a gun, I was sure that Dodge was wrong and had basically accepted Iconoclast's view on this for years.
Alas, it looks to me as if Dodge is right also.
If the movement of an object is resisted by a constant force while it is being moved the energy required to move it is F x D.
If the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the speed (F=kS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the the speed. E = kSD.
if the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the square of the speed (F=kSS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the square of the speed. E=kSSD.
edited to add.
The effect on the power required to move the object goes up at one higher power than the energy required to move the object.
for a constant force:
P=kS
for a force proportional to the speed:
P=kSS
for a force proportional to the square of the speed:
P=kSSS