Doping with water and fuel economy: a little serious

[Alex 56]

For some time I have noticed that the percentages
of GO savings from some "Pantone makers and the like, take pretty big proportions.

Inflated or not, these measures leave something to be desired ...
A little on Econology but on other parallel sites ...

Between tractors, cars, and ... Vortexes, we
wonder if we are not C ...
It is obvious that if an old vehicle consumes 9 l per 100
plus 1 liter of oil, there will be, perhaps, a fairly serious gain
by steam doping.

Already the liter of oil consumed will become "fuel" with the steam from the reactor.

We're going to go down to 7 liters of GO, but being new, this vehicle
maybe only 6 liter 5!
What about the test conditions?
And the measures ... on what basis?

Not many people give details! Apart from André
and a few others, it’s ANYTHING !!!
I think it's time to normalize it all,
or at least to "moralize" the results with some information on the operating methods, so that we
ends up in the same race (with a little more
credibility).


I will tell you what I got

from R 21 d without delay ...

Hi all.

[Flytox]

Hello Alex56

It seems "established" that a gasoline or diesel fuel pit that heads 12 liters per 100 km can be improved by (15 to 30%?).

What about a more sober original vehicle? Has someone achieved the same scores (15 to 30% improvement?) On a vehicle that consumes original 5 liters per 100 km?

A+

[Christophe]

Well that's what I've been killing myself trying to do since ... 2001 but despite that when we see what some journalists write frankly there is something to despair ...

https://www.econologie.com/forums/article-pa ... t4204.html

[crispus]

What about a more sober original vehicle? Has someone achieved the same scores (15 to 30% improvement?) On a vehicle that consumes original 5 liters per 100 km?

That's why I set my sights on a diesel AX, a record saving in its time. Objective 3 l / 100. Alas I hardly had time to get down to it, without counting its whims of all kinds.

By the way an anonymous on a forum (futurasciences?) trumpeted "make" 3l / 100 on his pantonée AX, I am still waiting to see his assembly on econo?

I ignore the "ordinary" consumption of an AXD, but I have never managed to make it swallow more than 4,8 l / 100 in 25000 km, even in the event of a fuel leak!

For the Pantone no obvious improvement in consumption, on the other hand, an obvious gain in torque, pleasant on occasions. Better consumption 4,1 / 100 against 4,5 previously on the same course. Or about 8%.

Since the installation of the vortices (without water), 2 "records" at 3,8 during the summers of 2006 and 2007. In winter, it is rather 4,3. It must be said that the gain in torque gave me the opportunity to overtake, I drive more nervously: it distorts the balance a little

The results remain honorable, but we are still far from 30%! I do not despair however ...

since the “waste hunt” of the 70s when I filled in my father's notebook, I have always noted every fill-up. I complete the tank carefully, even if it means being honked when I wait several times for the foam to come down.
At the PLCs, the machine sometimes "cuts" me before full filling, in this case I calculate my average for the next full, on 2 refills.

Unfortunately we see too often the vague "before the assembly of the SuperécotrucTM I did 700 km by full tank, after I did 850!". While the amount initially put into the tank varies with each filling, and greatly influences the end result ...

The palm of the approximation returning to JMM which proudly adds 2l in the tank after 100km traveled. I think he is sincere, but his approach serves him ...

[Other]

Hello

you have to pay attention to what level of power you make your measurements
At 90km h it is not very favorable for the panton, but favorable for the best economy on the vehicle
in my case the extended test that I cannot do is a long journey at 140kmh on a highway with water and without water
the comparative results would be surprising .. (It tolerates 110kmh)
currently it is around 105 110kmh that I do my tests
I stayed for a long time at 25% the best 28% without reaching these figures, it was only this summer that I exceeded 30% but never exceeded 32%
the 30% was a difficult barrier to pass, but once you pass you do not become more satisfied.

It was the temperature of the reactor that went up and I don't know exactly why.

A long trip on small roads at 80kmh it is more demanding than on the highway at 110kmh? it's not just the heat of the reactor that is involved.
There comes a time when the values ​​do not change anymore we relax our tests a little, but we must constantly observe when there are changes in behavior, analyze and try again

In your case if you feel too much peach, it is that you have too much water, decrease the water, the outlet temperature will increase
the system will improve ..
the economy is just when you barely feel the (fishing)

Andre

[Christine]

Christophe wrote an article about this a while ago: https://www.econologie.com/bien-mesurer- ... s-786.html

[Alex 56]

Some results of GO consumption checks
of my R 21 d manager (it is only used for that: to improve
the water doping system)

Odometer km: 402 km
Put into circulation: March 1992
Capacity: 2068 Cm3
Power: 67 Cv Din (4500 RPM)
Weight: 1125 Kg

The Technical Review I have in front of me is from January
1988, which makes this engine date from at least twenty
year.

To control the tests (in volume) I have 2 test pieces
behind the passenger seat: one for the GO and another for the water.
It is 2 stainless steel tubes of 65 mm internal diameter. (base area 33.6cm2
including the external gauge in Rilsan).
Height of the tubes: 80 cm.

Two GO circuits (round trip): one for the car tank and another for the gauge test tube, isolated from each other
others by 1/4 turn valves.
The control is done on the transparent pipe: the vehicle is well
level.
Needless to say that I do 20 or 30 km of "heating" before
each series of test routes so as to put everything in
temperature: Engine - Reactor - GV - GO as well as everything that runs: gearbox, hubs, ect ...
It is also this story of T ° (outside between others) that makes it work better in summer.


At stabilized speed (Km / h on the odometer) controlled on a
2,550 km distance: once to go and once to
back (There is a noticeable difference between the two directions
that's what it looks like:

at 70km / h 3,96 bed at 100
at 80km / h 4,15 bed at 100
at 90km / h 4,33 bed per 100

at 100km / h 4,87 bed at 100
110 liters per 5,24km / h 100 liters

water consumption: between 0,6 bed and 0,7 bed per 100


By cons I did not do this kind of test before the installation of the
water doping system ... which means I don't have
for comparison.
But for a 2 liter 100, I think it is "on schedule"

I have 3 interchangeable reactors
1 with core (slightly less efficient)
and 2 others with "catalyst" tubes

It is with one of these 2 that I made these tests: re producible
when the weather is nice !
To come: other results made on "calibrated" circuits
before doping, therefore with% savings.

See you soon ... Alex.

[Flytox]

Hello Alex 56

Capacity: 2068 Cm3
Power: 67 Cv Din (4500 RPM)

What exactly is your engine type?

To control the tests (in volume) I have 2 test pieces
behind the passenger seat: one for the GO and another for the water.
It is 2 stainless steel tubes of 65 mm internal diameter. (base surface 33.6cm2 including the external gauge in Rilsan).
Height of the tubes: 80 cm.

Two GO circuits (round trip): one for the car tank and another for the gauge test tube, isolated from each other
others by 1/4 turn valves.
The control is done on the transparent pipe: the vehicle is well
level.

You will not have a photo, your editing is interesting.

Needless to say that I do 20 or 30 km of "heating" before
each series of test routes so as to put everything in
temperature: Engine - Reactor - GV - GO as well as everything that runs: gearbox, hubs, ect ...

Indeed, for me too it is necessary to travel at least 20 km so that everything is stabilized. Just a suggestion, you also need to check the tire pressure and empty the trunk of all the souk that has been stored in it.

At stabilized speed (Km / h on the odometer) controlled on a
2,550 km distance: once to go and once to
back (There is a noticeable difference between the two directions
that's what it looks like:

at 70km / h 3,96 bed at 100
at 80km / h 4,15 bed at 100
at 90km / h 4,33 bed per 100

at 100km / h 4,87 bed at 100
110 liters per 5,24km / h 100 liters

water consumption: between 0,6 bed and 0,7 bed per 100

By cons I did not do this kind of test before the installation of the
water doping system ... which means I don't have
for comparison.

On the technical review, you have a page on the original performances with the consumption. It is almost incomparable to the nearest 0.2 liters with an original vehicle. Cars that pass the test are prepared by the manufacturer for the consumption test ....

Have you done several times in a row strictly the same test to see the extent of the dispersions. With my system for reading the instantaneous consumption with a float flow meter it is not playable when driving over a distance of 2.55 km x 2. I would need a passenger to read several values ​​and average, it is too reactive.

A+

[Alex 56]

Hi everybody.

For Flytox,

According to the Technical Review the engine would be a J8S-A 704
but I haven't checked yet ...


I just found (at the end of the review) the consumption
from the manufacturer:

90Km / h 4,6 L / 100
120Km / h 6,0 L / 100
urban 7,9 L / 100
I am happy: with 4,3 L at 90Km / h I beat them by 7%!
on the other hand at 120 I will have more trouble ... too much restriction to
intake and also exhaust! But I will take care
this side.

For the tests, yes I make several comparisons between the
tests: and there is often 2 to 3% difference.

And tests ... I did!
Between January and the end of October I counted 1028 ..
All put on cards with ... 14 parameters per test!
The advantage of control immediately afterwards allows you to move forward
much faster!

See you soon .

[Flytox]

Hello Alex 56

I am happy: with 4,3 L at 90Km / h I beat them by 7%!
on the other hand at 120 I will have more trouble ... too much restriction to
intake and also exhaust! But I will take care
this side.

It's less loud than those who advertise 50% savings on their car without proof. Here it feels more objective measurement and the engine not yet at the end of its development.

For the tests, yes I make several comparisons between the
tests: and there is often 2 to 3% difference.

It's not bad at all for a "mobile bench". For the other Pantomists do you also arrive in this range of errors?

And tests ... I did!
Between January and the end of October I counted 1028 ..
All put on cards with ... 14 parameters per test!
The advantage of control immediately afterwards allows you to move forward
much faster!

You saw me ... if it is not indiscreet, you can show us a statement sheet to realize the parameters that you note and the work (huge).
A+