As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
What the hell is Force Fuel Saver
musanman
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I have a colleague who keeps pushing this bullshit and how she is saving 25% on her gas bills by adding it. Now I'm certain this product is bullshit, but I can't really find any legitimate documentation on it.
What is it made of, how does it work, and does anybody know of any good facts I can share to dispel her dumb plugging.
What is it made of, how does it work, and does anybody know of any good facts I can share to dispel her dumb plugging.
musanman on
0
Posts
I don't know the details on this particular tank performer, but that's the standard ingredient to them.
http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1086498001
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2008/10/fuel_saver_scams.html
http://www.forcefuelsaver.com/pdf/msds.pdf
It looks like it's 99.5 percent Ferrocene.
The wierd thing is it looks to be more of a diesel soot controller and knock remover than an oxygenate.
Most of the googling shows the studies measure exhaust pollutants more than fuel efficiency.
Edit: Darn you to heck Quetzatcoatl!
It looks like it's good for knocks and smoke/soot, but fuel consumption is either the same or worse depending on the study:
http://www.fpc1.com/tests/RDI_TBs/TB%201104.1%20-%20Ferrocene.htm
Yeah, that's the only thing I can think of too. There is no extra oxygen in the additive to really improve combustion.
Looking at the website the price comes out at approximately 15 cents a gallon (23.95 for 10 pills, 1 pill per 16 gallons)
So if it really is just improving octanage then if the price difference is less than 15 cents a gallon she is paying more than she could if she just higher octane fuel.
I am going to say that the reason she is getting better mileage is confirmation bias.
I doubt that she is getting knocking in her car, unless she drives an import or something the requires higher octane fuel. Even then, is the mileage improvement from regular to premium going to match the amount she is claiming. I doubt it.
but they're listening to every word I say
this seems enlightening for premiums vs regular.
but they're listening to every word I say
You can't get BETTER mileage by using premium gas in a car that doesn't need it, but you can lower your mileage if you use a lower octane than your car was designed for. Since most gas stations pull your gas from a couple different tanks anyway before it pumps into your fuel most of the myths regarding cleanliness and all that are bullshit.
The chemistry of this fascinates me so I'm curious. What grade of fuel do you use? That Force is just ferrocene which is basically an anti-knock agent. I'm wondering if it's basically just having the same impact as using a higher octane gas (which doesn't necessarily increase gas mileage, but it stops the engine's anti-knocking mechanism from adjusting the compression ratio resulting in lower mileage).
Near as I can tell you pay $24 for about 160 gallons of gas, which is $.15/gallon. If a higher octane is $.10/gallon would you be willing to experiment and try the higher octane gas to see what happens?
This is false. The energy content won't change much for any hydrocarbon fuel on a mass basis regardless of the composition. Ethanol is leaner than the paraffins that make up most gasoline but it is also cheaper.
The main advantage of higher octane fuel is not the energy content. The advantage comes from extending the carnot cycle and reducing the volume in pistons as much as possible before the spark plug ignites the mixture.
It is true that increased octane fuel will not help a car that is not meant to use higher octane fuel. But it is more efficient for an engine that is tuned for it.
I would debate with you, but I really have no idea what you are talking about.
But if I had to trust the car talk guys over random guy on the internet, I think I will go with car talk.
but they're listening to every word I say
http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/premium/questions.html
seems like they agree with you, though they seem to think buying a high compression engine is silly.
edit: apparently, they say that cars are built with sensors to compensate for that now anyway, so buying premium gas for a new car is still dumb.
but they're listening to every word I say
If you don't have a high-performance engine, it doesn't matter in the slightest; use the cheapest gas you find.
edit: Tom and Ray do indeed think that buying a high compression engine is silly, but they don't really go for the whole "fast cars" thing.
Car Talk is written for retards who don't know how cars work. Their goal is to give an explanation that is good enough, not exact.
I'll give them credit; it's a little more subtle than the "a quart of gasoline and some red dye" liquid fuel additives.
Well according to the msds on their website http://www.forcefuelsaver.com/pdf/msds.pdf it's 99.5% ferrocene. Ferrocene is an anti-knocking agent that has been around for a long time. Ferrocene is known to reduce soot, but that's because it slows flame development by absorbing the flame front in the ignition sequence.
It does have some impact on oxidation, but no measurable effect on combustion efficiency.
I just wonder if you could save money/time using a higher octane gas instead of this Force stuff. If your car calls for 85 octane, try one higher than that and see what happens. Basically an anti-knocking agent raises the temperature required for combustion which is similar to using a higher octane, but it also is known to leave some sediment behind that might be detrimental with long term use. I did talk to my chemical engineer buddy who said any mention of esters in this process is pretty bogus, so I'm guessing that's just marketing.
Hope this helps!
<me>
<she> writes:
><me>,
>Force was made by Dr. Polite of Axion Labratories, who has worked in
>major contracts for the EPA and other areas of the government. It is
>made of "esters" which fill in all of the abrasions in your
>engine, therefore lubricating it. It also burns fuel at a higher
>temperature, causing your engine to USE the extra fuel it usually
>burns out of the exhaust pipe. Friends that I have that use Force
>have reported much less smoke during start-up in the mornings, and I
>have personally experienced a smoother drive especially on the
>highway. I use/ need to put regular (85) octance in my car, but have
>friends that are now using regular in their cars that call for
>premium. One friend has a race car, and it is saving on his fuel cost
>and performing above 93 (premium). He also cut time off this drag
>record while using it. If you visit www.forceinfocenter.com, you can
>view test results, explanations of how exactly the product works, etc.
>I hope this helps. Let me know if you need additional information.
>
The stuff Quetz is saying is straight out of a basic thermodynamics course. Don't sneer at him.
Musanman, arguing with this person is going to be as fruitful as the argument I had with a friend who thinks Joe Arpaio is the best thing since the vagina was invented. About the best you can do is say that there isn't a single reputable source with scientific data in favor of the...whatever the fuck it is. The stupid person will triple their volume in self-righteous indignation alone in an instinctive attempt to frighten off predators.
This is pure comedy. The race car comment in particular.
ProPatriaMori is right, but i guess you could attempt to teach her how an internal combustion engine actually works....knowing the basics may help her understand why this won't.
No, it won't improve your Gas mileage, your best bet is to do the normal maintenance someone posted before, and change your driving habits - accelerate slowly, shift early, nice and easy. watch the road ahead, when it becomes clear you are going to need to stop, lift off the gas and coast as much as possible. You can even coast down hills, gas up hills.
Or buy a 4 cylinder, lightweight car with a manual transmission and a nice long gearset. Used Honda Civics ('92-'00) are great for this. The HX models are even built just as I've described, even down to lighter wheels.
Physics always wins, gasoline only burns at ~30% efficiency. MAYBE you can boost that by a few % by streamlining your air intake/exhaust systems. But there is no miracle additive that turns an inefficient process into an efficient one.
I'll sneer at who I want. ... but I wasn't sneering at him.
I get the gist, I just don't know what a carnot cycle is.
but they're listening to every word I say
It's closer to 40 something % in modern engines.
Maybe if you average Diesel fuel in with Gasoline, Diesel is much more efficient, i think it can get up to 44% Gasoline is around 27% But a Prius can reach 37%, engine only. Two-Stroke marine engines clear 50%, Looks like turboshaft engines can get 45%-48% which is impressive to me.
Carnot Cycle refers to a sort of thermal engine. I'm not really familiar with it, something about expansion and contraction producing movement if i recall. Basically had a hot side and a cold side....i dunno, ill have to look it up. A four stroke motor does not have anything to do with a Carnot anything though...Maybe he meant "Otto Cycle"?
Stolen from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
A heat engine acts by transferring energy from a warm region to a cool region of space and, in the process, converting some of that energy to mechanical work. The cycle may also be reversed. The system may be worked upon by an external force, and in the process, it can transfer thermal energy from a cooler system to a warmer one, thereby acting as a heat pump rather than a heat engine.
He's using the Carnot Cycle as a generic replacement for heat engine. The carnot cycle is the ideal, unrealizable, heat engine cycle.
It's also the theoretical basis behind proving there is, in fact, absolute zero for temperature. Which is kind of important.
He said: The main advantage of higher octane fuel is not the energy content. The advantage comes from extending the carnot cycle and reducing the volume in pistons as much as possible before the spark plug ignites the mixture.
A Heat Engine uses temperature differentials to produce mechanical motion - "work". A normal internal combustion engine uses the combustion forces to produce work. Ideally, for an ICD engine, the Block, Head and Pistons will stay at a median temperature (the entire motor will, actually). Certainly there will be some minor fluctuation in the combustion chamber but, relative to the temperature of the motor, it is minor.
Not to mention that a Carnot Cycle engine does not incorporate fuel of that nature nor spark plugs.
Hah, yea, kind of.
You were right before about Otto cycle being more likely what he's referring to--more compression in a theoretical Otto Cycle is generally a good thing--but extending the Carnot Cycle would work the same way. On a T-s diagram, you'd basically end up with an expanded rectangle, which means more work.
A Carnot Cycle is still a heat compress cool expand cycle and not a bad go-to if you want to say "hey this shit isn't going to make anything more efficient because this is as efficient as it gets bitches." I stand by Quetz. And Carnot.
The following test was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Lee Polite at Axion Analytical Laboratories, Inc..
Ash Measurement Results
DATE: 02-03-2009
FORCE SAMPLE CRUCIBLE CRUCIBLE + SAMPLE CRUCIBLE + ASH %ASH DETECTION LIMIT [<] ASH-FREE [MIN]
Small01 25.1899 27.2490 25.1899 0.00000% 0.000049 99.99514%
Small02 25.1899 29.2051 25.1899 0.00000% 0.000025 99.99751%
Large01 35.7800 80.8054 35.7800 0.00000% 0.000002 99.99978%
Large02 35.7800 78.0541 35.7800 0.00000% 0.000002 99.99976%
The following tests were performed at Fall-Line Motorsports, LLC..
Under the supervision of Dr. Lee Polite from Axion Analytical Laboratories, Inc..
Horsepower and Torque Results
DATE: 02-03-2009, VEHICLE: 2004 ACURA MDX, RESULTS IN PDF FORMAT here
BEFORE
AVG HP MAX HP AVG TORQUE MAX TORQUE
132 175 174 182
136 178 178 -
134 178 176 185
AFTER 2 HOURS WITH FORCE
AVG HP MAX HP AVG TORQUE MAX TORQUE
146 185 196 209
144 183 193 205
144 182 193 205
142 181 190 203
139 181 187 204
139 177 186 214
AVERAGE INCREASE
134.0 177.0 176.0 183.5
142.3 181.5 190.8 206.7
6.19% 2.54% 8.41% 12.64%
About Esters
In the simplest terms, esters can be defined as the reaction products of acids and alcohols. Thousands of different kinds of esters are commercially produced for a broad range of applications. Within the realm of synthetic lubrication, a relatively small substantial family of esters have been found to be very useful in severe environment applications.
Esters have been used successfully in lubrication for more than 50 years and are the preferred stock in many severe applications where their benefits solve problems or bring value. For example, esters have been used exclusively in jet engine lubricants worldwide for over 40 years due to their unique combination of low temperature flowability with clean high temperature operation. Esters are also the preferred stock in the new synthetic refrigeration lubricants used with CFC replacement refrigerants. Here the combination of branching and polarity make the esters miscible with the HFC refrigerants and improves both low and high temperature performance characteristics. In automotive applications, the first qualified synthetic crankcase motor oils were based entirely on esters and these products were quite successful when properly formulated. Esters have given way to Polyalphaolefins (PAOs) in this application due to PAOs lower cost and their formulating similarities to mineral oil. Nevertheless, way are nearly
always used in combination with PAOs in full synthetic motor oils in order to balance the effect on seals, solubilize additives, reduce volatility, and improve energy efficiency through higher lubricity. The percentage of ester used in motor oils can vary anywhere from 5 to 25% depending upon the desired properties and the type of ester employed.
Esters lubricants have already captured certain niches in the industrial market such as reciprocating air compressors and high temperature industrial oven chain lubricants. When one focuses on high temperature extremes and their telltale signs such as smoking, wear, and deposits, the potential applications for the problem solving ester lubricants are virtually endless.
In many ways esters are very similar to the more commonly known and used synthetic hydrocarbons or PAOs. Like PAOs, esters are synthesized form relatively pure and simple starting materials to produce predetermined molecular structures designed specifically for high performance lubrication. Both types of synthetic base stocks are primarily branched hydrocarbons which are thermally and oxidatively stable, have high viscosity indices, and lack the undesirable and unstable impurities found in conventional petroleum based oils. The primary structural difference between esters and PAOs is the presence of multiple ester linkages (COOR) in esters which impart polarity to the molecules. This polarity affects the way esters behave as lubricants in the following ways:
Volatility: The polarity of the ester molecules causes them to be attracted to one another and this intermolecular attraction requires more energy (heat) for the esters to transfer from a liquid to a gaseous state. Therefore, at a given molecular weight or viscosity, the esters will exhibit a lower vapor pressure which translates into a higher flash point and a lower rate of evaporation for the lubricant. Generally speaking, the more ester linkages in a specific ester the higher its flash point and the lower its volatility.
Lubricity: Polarity also causes the ester molecules to be attracted to positively charged metal surfaces. As a result, the molecules tend to line up on the metal surface creating a film which requires additional energy (load) to penetrate. The result is a stronger film which translates into higher lubricity and lower energy consumption on lubricant applications.
Detergency/Dispersency: The polar nature of esters also makes them good solvents and dispersants. This allows the esters to solubilize or disperse oil degradation by-products which might otherwise be deposited as varnish or sludge, and translates into cleaner operation and improved additive solubility in the final lubricant.
Biodegradability: While stable against oxidative and thermal breakdown, the ester linkage provides a vulnerable site for microbes to begin their work of biodegrading the ester molecule. This translates into very high biodegradability rates for ester lubricants and allows more environmentally friendly products to be formulated.
anybody feel like debunking any of this, I don't think I'm going to respond anymore...but hopefully she doesn't keep posting her ads to avoid being annoyed
I mean, sure, you could esterify long chain alkanes as lubricants - but then they have a composition that's basically motor oil. Which is, you know, terrible for an engine to actually burn as a fuel additive. And all of which would have nothing to do with adding short chain esters to fuel to do anything.
Print up fancy-looking flyers for the Accelerator Pedal Retarding Intervention Lump, or AP-RIL.
Proven European technology has been applied to such vehicles as the Vauxhall Astra VXR, and has been found to double your fuel economy with this installed!
No fancy tools required! Simply affix the AP-RIL to your driver's side floor mat using the included Velcro pads, and enjoy the benefits of improved fuel economy!
Make a few of those up, post them up right beside her stupidity.
Enjoy the lulz.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
The carnot cycle is a theoretical model that applies to any heat engine, including internal combustion engines. The closer you can get to that cycle the more efficient the engine will be. When an internal combustion engine is on the compression stage the more you compress the fuel the more efficient the engine will be. This is accomplished by using higher octane fuel.
This means higher octane fuel will be more efficient as long as the engine is built to take advantage of it.
As far as the Force Fuel Saver, you're never going to convince a person like that.
There is nothing in that additive that would allow for better combustion, but it doesn't seem like its the type of person you want to argue chemistry with.
I tried a higher octane in my Cherokee with no difference in mileage and the fact that it leaks every goddamn fluid known to man makes me feel like my fuel burning cleaner is not enough incentive to spend the extra cash on gas.
Outside of fuel injector cleaner I don't believe there is any point in putting anything in your tank aside from gas. I think the majority of the folk in this thread have cited as much.
In the end people are going to listen to those shiny ads and walls of text and there is not shit anyone can do about it. That is a different thread though I believe.