Water doping in Autoplus

[PITMIX]

For information:
in the other pages of this article on the different fuel savers, it should be noted that only the pantone reactor provides real gain. 8,9L instead of 10,7L is already beautiful, the others bring nothing in the best of cases (additives); + 1 liter per 100 for the worst (ionnizer), the best according to autoplus does not bring a reduction in consumption (see a slight increase) but they cost less or even are free for the recovery of oil from restaurants (except the filtering). Actually the simplest is to put 30% of rapeseed oil in the diesel, but it is prohibited and in addition it is less funny than to make a piping which allows you to make water flow to your mill for a better result.

[Christophe]

So apparently Pitmix you have the entire Autoplus "fuel saver" article?
Would it be possible for you to scan it and put it on the forum (or that you send it to me by email if you can't put it online?)
If not, what number is it? Is it still on sale?

Thank you

Otherwise I like this sentence: the others bring nothing in the best of cases (additives); + 1 liter per 100 for the worst (ionnizer),

Air or fuel ionizer? Finally if you manage to scan the article we will see ...
How can these artifacts increase consumption? No effect ok ... but to increase it I find it hard to grasp ... in any case they "lighten" the wallet to buy it ... This is the only certainty ...

[milerin]

The drop in consumption to 130 km / h absolutely does NOT mean anything.
Run an engine on three cylinders and you will lower consumption too. But also the perfs!

It takes a full passage to the bench before and after hacking!

Comparing a consumption measurement from 16 years ago with a current measurement on a very specific engine is simply ridiculous! It's not scientific ...

Conclusion: this test is worthless. It does not allow one to conclude either one way or the other!

The car manufacturers' pollution tests follow very precise procedures: standardized cycles with acceleration, stabilized ranges, etc. ... Why not use these procedures to test the Pantone ???

The technical control measures do not seem credible to me because they are not carried out by competent scientists. Sorry, I don't trust Dede the local mechanic ...

The drop in certains pollutants can be explained by the fact that the injection of water lowers the temperature in the combustion chamber ... But other pollutants are formed at "low" temperature, the result of Auto Plus goes well in this direction (to check)

But the drop in consumption is harder to swallow ... :-)

Ah the ugly oil tankers who don't want Pantone!

It's still crazy that car manufacturers are investing billions in pollution control and are not interested in Pantone ... They are really useless, don't you think?

And what does IFP do? (from which came the last Nobel Prize in Chemistry, should we remember?)

I can only see one thing: call Elisabeth Tessier, doctor of cosmological magnetism ...

[Christophe]

It takes a full passage to the bench before and after hacking!

The car manufacturers' pollution tests follow very precise procedures: standardized cycles with acceleration, stabilized ranges, etc. ... Why not use these procedures to test the Pantone ???

On the principle of your remarks I fully agree ... let's be scientific! But this requires substantial resources and I am sorry but when I contacted the various competent bodies to make further studies (Ademe, BE de Renault, DRIRE, INRETS ...) they all sent me on the roses... without a valid and credible answer (the "best" argument from Renault: "If it worked it would already be developed" )

But obviously these were my requests which must have been badly formulated ...

Do you think the coal miners helped Diesel and the early automakers? I believe that the current situation is not much different ... although the first diesel engines turned to coal dust ... my example is therefore perhaps not judicious.

Then the protocol of Autoplus, was perhaps not extremely rigorous, but was the same for all the "economizer" ... or none of the other product gave as good results as doping with water ... Not to mention the fact that the "origin consumption" comparative test was carried out on a NEW vehicle ... Everyone knows that the consumption of petrol vehicles increases with km ...


Finally as an engineer (no doubt) of Cticm I do not think that you are a specialist in motorization ... what do you have to vilify against the process then? Buddies at IFP? I remember some heated debate on this meme forum or you didn't really have the advantage in your arguments ... and you preferred to "run away" ...

ps: I just bought the autoplus number in question, I will scan and news the entire article in question

[PITMIX]

It is true that Autoplus was not very serious on the Pantone test, but hey, as we say, we are defending our steak. If it's on the forum of "ECOTURBO" people think like us that the test was poorly done. Finally! nothing is lost ... the system is democratized and it is more and more publicized;). I do not understand why the people at Autoplus did not mount the system on the Megane Diesel for example. There the comparisons would have been indisputable.

[Christophe]

I do not understand why the people at Autoplus did not mount the system on the Megane Diesel for example. There the comparisons would have been indisputable.

Regarding doping, they did not mount anything but found a vehicle already modified ... but it is not their job either to do engineering ... but it is obvious that a diesel would have given better depollution results (see the olive tree Zxtd / professor31)

[Other]

Hello,
A post I made in another forum , I believe that the people who took this test lack of experience and after the comments I read here I see that very can have try on a gasoline automobile, especially with regard to the unburned at low speed or with too much of water, as well as the lack of ignition, it is not credible, the lack of analysis and in addition to draw conclusions in a newspaper of this reputation, I come to doubt the seriousness of these people ... however I am nothing but a small isolated handyman and I make the corrections has this minor problem of the reactor, it did not even speak about the real problems of the reactor ....

I'm running out of time, so I'm copying my post, but I think it's important to respond to similar writing in a newspaper ...
After November 6 I will be more available and if someone at the address of the newspaper I will give them there, just hit on a water doping reactor and how in which condition we operate a reactor.

There is real and fake in this BMW test
first of all in terms of fuel consumption by driving above 100kmh it's more interesting
in terms of pollution, the engine therefore loads heat and an operational reactor gives this.
Now what he forgets to say is that at low speeds, when the reactor has cooled, if he persists in sending water into the reactor that the rod becomes wet, it is nothing but water droplets which enters the engine, with a bubbler it has nothing to reduce the flow, with a carburetor we can reduce or cut the water at low speed in town
as I said in a post on my Chevrolet when I put too much water at low speed the engine has misfires as if the candles were drowning so explosions are absent = pollution by unburnt.
What should this BMW driver know that even the ERGvalve at low speed is off,
With use before the reactor cools I decrease the water flow
and even when I am stopped at a traffic light I turn off the water.
I no longer have this engine problem that has misfires or is slipping ...
so let's turn it on, before I write such a case in newspapers.

The reactor is only operational when the engine has a certain load, and all measures must be taken under these conditions.
And again since I hit the top I know that in certain conditions the reactor takes off, and often times it is because we are fishing by excess, we tend to want to make the reactor drink too much water.
To make a good test you have to install an automatic system which controls the amount of water going to the reactor according to the heat of the reactor, with our handcrafted DIY and often badly used we can only draw such conclusions ...

Andre

[milerin]

Just to answer the administrator that I did not flee the debates on the forum but that I had other things to do!
I emphasize that I speak in my own name, without label, and that I am solely responsible for my words.
(In fact I come back to the forum today because I came back to an econology email while cleaning my mailbox ....)

I do not claim to be an expert in motorization, only a little bit scientific. No need to be an expert engine manufacturer to understand that heating the gas intake of a gasoline engine is heresy ...
If for you Auto Plus is a scientific journal, then we don't speak the same language ...

Enough time wasted, have fun ...

[popaul]

I'm glad to see that it makes you govern that we question pantone ...
I really like renault's reponce (it's the one I also get when I explain the system)
Credible tests would certainly be welcome.
When you see the electronics to operate a BMW engine, you can understand that it disturbs it. Improve and make profitable Pantone by putting some circuit, it must be possible?
It's all about investment ...
(I remember a post where someone wanted to invest € 30000, and it was nicely sent to the roses)

[Christophe]

I remember a post where someone wanted to invest 30000 €, and it was nicely sent to the roses

He was an identity usurper detractor ... nothing to expect ...