Well I have a result for you all - but not as you would expect:
NO ACETONE
39.4l petrol used
Miles covered = 186.9
mpg = 21.35
WITH ACETONE
42.73l petrol used
Miles covered = 185.6
Mpg = 19.55
Obviously measuring over 186 miles is nowhere near sufficient in terms of
scientific
Doing an mpg test at the moment Keith, another 130 miles to do before I can
report back. What I will say is that the engine seems to be running a little
smoother, quieter with a bit more power - not very quantitative I know.
One observation I've made is that the engine before was running rich -
Acetone's a better subject than acetylene eh? LOL! (Phew!) By the
way, we took that tank back to that engineer, and he wasn't at all
perturbed by what we told him. Oh, he said. Hm. Beware of certain
engineers bearing gifts.
Doing an mpg test at the moment Keith, another 130 miles to do
In addition to mpg comparison, it will be useful to know the age and size of
the engine, the type of fuel delivery system, the fuel used, and the amount of
acetone added.
m--
Doing an mpg test at the moment ...the engine seems to be running a little
smoother, quieter with a bit more power - not
Re: BUT
I'm wondering if there were differences between tanks because of the gas. I
mean to say that there might be fluctuations in the gas delivered to the same
gas station. Since (as I understand it) the same gas station was used, perhaps
the difference is in the pumps.
...just
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Keith Addison
Sent: 30 April 2005 10:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Fwd: Acetone as gasoline additive tests - Phase II
Hi Malcolm, how goes?
Acetone's a better subject than acetylene eh? LOL! (Phew!) By the
way, we
