Using electric field to thin fuel

[Kev]

Wonder why no one has thought of this before!

http://www.temple.edu/newsroom/2008_2009/09/stories/taofueldevice.htm

How does it "Thin" the fuel???
sounds like a fuel line heater
might have an effect in extreme cold climates


Kev

 

[Kev]

Sticking with the motoring theme of this thread do you know that Harley
Davidson is actually trying to patent the "sound" of its motorcycles? This
is a first BTW.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1998101101.html

BTW Harley's are the most efficient engines at turning petrol into noise
without the side effect of horsepower ;-)

Cheers TT

I was watching an episode of American Chopper and they made a custom
bike for a lawn mower Company
even used the mower engine
seemed to go as well as any of the choppers they had with Harley based
engines

Kev

 

[Franc Zabkar]

ml


Which is obviously a more appropriate use, since there is no evidence
tendered that reducing the viscosity of the fuel actually leads to increased
efficiency when used in a properly tuned car engine in the first place.

MrT.

The article states that Iveco, an Italian diesel engine manufacturer,
subjected the device to testing on a dynamometer. Some results are
included.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Actually they say the effect lasts for a couple of hours, so could obviously
be done in the fueling rig before it even goes into the racing car. Therfore
no weight penalty, or other problems.

MrT.

The researchers claim that the effect on crude petroleum lasts for up
to 8 hours. They didn't make any such claims in respect of diesel or
petrol.

The article states that "under the same pressure, the average size of
diesel fuel droplets is much bigger than the average size of gasoline
droplets, because diesel fuel has much higher viscosity than gasoline.
Therefore, reducing the viscosity of the fuel greatly improves the
fuel atomization."

One would expect that, if diesel fuel has a much higher viscosity,
then the effects on gasoline would be correspondingly less. In fact
the researchers appear cagey in respect of their gasoline testing.
They only quote results for gasoline when blended with 20% ethanol.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Yep, I've got an engineer mate who served as a ships engineer and he tells
the story of getting some thin (compared to the tar they had) russian
diesel fuel for the ship and "the old girl practically flew all the way
home"

The difference in performance could be due to the higher grade, ie
higher calorific value, rather than lower viscosity.

All the scamsters say that same sort of stuff.
Did they list the reference and did it check out?
Or is this "trust me, would I lie to you" all over again?

I am as skeptical as the next person, probably more so, but I also
read the literature, assuming anything is available. The article I
referenced in my other post identifies the manufacturer as Cornaglia
Iveco. That same article has a [skimpy] table of results.

Having said that, when I first checked out the reference, Google
turned up only 18 hits on "Cornaglia Iveco", all of them in relation
to the "thin fuel" tests. This made me suspicious.

However, this Wikipedia article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco

.... states that "Iveco is an Italian truck, bus, and diesel engine
manufacturer, based in Turin, Italy. It is a subsidiary of the Fiat
Group, and produces around 200,000 commercial vehicles and 460,000
diesel engines annually".

I haven't contacted them, though. I assume the journalists have
already done that. ;-)

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Heating it up will achieve the same result ;-)

Heating is costly.

Because it doesn't work! Listen, it is quite simple. In a modern petrol
engine meeting stringent emission standards the fuel system is calibrated by
mass and not volume. Unless you are claiming this device changes the mass
of the fuel molecules then it cannot work. We also have oxygen sensors in
the exhaust system to finely calibrate the whole process. Diesel engines are
just about there as well.

I was being deliberately cynical. Clearly the researchers have been
unable to demonstrate any benefits in petrol engined vehicles,
otherwise they would be crowing about them.

The researchers claim that "because combustion starts at the interface
between fuel and air and most harmful emissions are coming from
incomplete burning, reducing the size of fuel droplets would increase
the total surface area to start burning, leading to a cleaner and more
efficient engine".

So it seems to me that the idea behind the invention is to reduce the
viscosity of the fuel in order to improve its atomisation, which in
turn results in combustion efficiencies.

The news article states that ...

"Temple [University] has applied for a patent on this technology,
which has been licensed to California-based Save The World Air Inc.,
an environmentally conscientious enterprise focused on the design,
development, and commercialization of revolutionary technologies
targeted at reducing emissions from internal combustion engines."

Applying for a patent does not necessarily mean the thing works.

True. An Australian lawyer was granted a patent on the wheel, with a
sketch of a billy cart as the application.

Regardless of the viscosity of petrol it is optimally at 14.7:1 by mass.
Some manufacturers run leaner but it tops out at approximately 16:1. So if
anyone can convince me that changing viscosity of fuel in a modern engine
achieves something then please go ahead.

The article states that "the Delphi Company plans to develop a new
fuel injector that uses a high pressure of 100 bar to reduce the size
of gasoline droplets to 25 µm in diameter".

This is approaching the problem from a different perspective, but the
aim is the same, ie to improve fuel atomisation. The researchers have
made no claims in respect of stoichiometric ratios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio for some light reading


BTW I was involved (many years ago) looking at testing procedures with water
injection on petrol engines. Some very good results were gained but only
after very un-ordinary testing on a dyno. e.g humidity levels at near zero
and the engine running at extreme temperatures. When tested under normal
conditions it actually made things worse! So horses (horespowers) for
courses ;-) So in this testing where they achieved these results I would
have liked to have seen it for myself because *IF* they actually achieved it
then I would like to have seen how they cooked the results ;-)

Many years ago I added an electronic water injection system to my
triple-carburettored engine. A few minutes at low vacuum was all that
was required to empty the bottle. Pretty much useless.

Cheers TT forever sceptical ;-)

Likewise. I suspect that the subject invention will have no
application in petrol engined vehicles.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Bernd Felsche]

TT wrote:

Nor does having one granted ,esp by the USPTO who are only interested in your
money.

I fully expect MOST patents in the USA are TOTALLY worthless.

Quite a few of the rest aren't even legally worth the protection
that they ostensibly provide.

USPTO seems to think that ALL prior art is that which exists in
their Patents database. I'm aware of one Patent in particular where
a web search would have found prior art; mine, at least. I published
to frustrate somebody getting a Patent on the bleeding obvious.
<http://bernd.felsche.org/tech/EFI/DDL/DDL.html>

It was a mailing list member who subsequently patented the invention.
US Patents 6,978,655 and 7,249,489

 

[Jasen Betts]

Regardless of the viscosity of petrol it is optimally at 14.7:1 by mass.
Some manufacturers run leaner but it tops out at approximately 16:1. So if
anyone can convince me that changing viscosity of fuel in a modern engine
achieves something then please go ahead.

Atomisation.

good mixing of fuel and air is essential to good combustion.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Ross Herbert]

:On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:52:24 +0900, "TT" <[email protected]>
ut finger to keyboard and composed:
:
:>
:>:>> Wonder why no one has thought of this before!
:>>
:>> http://www.temple.edu/newsroom/2008_2009/09/stories/taofueldevice.htm
:>
:>It has been done before and will be done again. It is all bullshit.
:
:That was my first impression, and I'm still very skeptical, but the
:researchers appear to have some independent test results that support
:their claims, at least in respect of diesel engines.

Didn't Firepower have "independent test results" for their fuel pill too? Tim
Johnston sure managed to scam people for up to $100M on that one.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/firepower-boss-feeling-the-heat/2007/09/28/1190486568678.html

 

[Mr.T]

The article states that Iveco, an Italian diesel engine manufacturer,
subjected the device to testing on a dynamometer. Some results are
included.

Which may only indicate the quality (or lack thereof) of *their* fuel
injection systems though.
Or more likely the level of their vested interests.
Obviously far more vigorous testing is needed before making any assumptions.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

The article states that "the Delphi Company plans to develop a new
fuel injector that uses a high pressure of 100 bar to reduce the size
of gasoline droplets to 25 µm in diameter".

This is approaching the problem from a different perspective, but the
aim is the same, ie to improve fuel atomisation. The researchers have
made no claims in respect of stoichiometric ratios.

Exactly, fuel atomisation and fuel viscosity are different things.
The invention claims to reduce fuel viscosity, which *may* make a difference
to the economy in a limited number of cases, but the same effect can
probably be achieved in a number of other ways, some of which are probably
cheaper, and/or already being used.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Didn't Firepower have "independent test results" for their fuel pill too? Tim
Johnston sure managed to scam people for up to $100M on that one.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/firepower-boss-feeling-the-heat/2007/09/
28/1190486568678.html

As PT Barnum may have said "there's a sucker born every minute", but that
was in a world with a lower birth rate than currently

MrT.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Ahhhhhh.................. I see. So rather than make good fuel injectors
that do this already we have to invent something to change the viscosity of
the fuel? Or rather than use waste heat from the engine to do it we chose
to suck electrical power out of the alternator and so decrease efficiency
further.

Silly me ;-)

Cheers TT

AFAIK, heating fuel lines is a bad idea. In the days when we had
carburettors and mechanical low-pressure fuel pumps, there was a
phenomenon called vapour lock. It is rarely seen in injected engines,
though.

The researchers claim that the power required for their device is only
0.1W. They say that the wire mesh electrodes are 1cm apart, and that
the field strength is 1kV/mm. This would require a 10kV source.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

The news article states that ...

"Temple [University] has applied for a patent on this technology,
which has been licensed to California-based Save The World Air Inc.,
an environmentally conscientious enterprise focused on the design,
development, and commercialization of revolutionary technologies
targeted at reducing emissions from internal combustion engines."

The US patent office granted a patent, #6901917, in Jun 7, 2005
(Filing date: May 21, 2001) to Jeffrey Alan Muller for a "device for
saving fuel and reducing emissions". The assignee was "Save The World
Air, Inc". This is for a different invention which claims that
neodymium magnets can reduce the size of fuel droplets to as low as 3
microns in diameter.

The patent states that "the applicant has achieved fuel savings of up
to 63% ... on a four cylinder petrol engine". However, the
experimental "results" that are tabulated in the patent appear
deliberately obscure and refer only to emissions tests, not
performance or fuel consumption.

This is a telling statement:

"Without being bound by theory, the applicant believes that ..."

A search of the US patent office turns up *many* magnetic fuel saving
inventions, so it seems that an "inventor" does not need to provide
convincing proof that his invention actually does what he claims it
does, even if his claims are outrageous.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Mr.T]

The researchers claim that the power required for their device is only
0.1W. They say that the wire mesh electrodes are 1cm apart, and that
the field strength is 1kV/mm. This would require a 10kV source.

The device that's generates a sustained 10kV using 0.1W would probably have
greater application

MrT.

 

[Bernd Felsche]

The device that's generates a sustained 10kV using 0.1W would probably have
greater application

Photo-flash.

 

[Clint Sharp]

Regardless of the viscosity of petrol it is optimally at 14.7:1 by mass.

Generally. Depends on the hydrocarbon mix in the petrol, BrettSchneider
is the equation to look at, it gives stoichiometric ratios taking into
account the hydrocarbon make up of the fuel. 14.7:1 is fairly accurate
for petrol unless you're getting some really funky stuff out of the pump
or you're running on some alternate fuel (I've seen pure benzene being
used near here by some guys who worked out that they could 'liberate'
industrial cleaning solvent and run their cars on it)

Some manufacturers run leaner but it tops out at approximately 16:1. So if
anyone can convince me that changing viscosity of fuel in a modern engine
achieves something then please go ahead.

Produces more NOx though, that's what killed lean burn engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio for some light reading


BTW I was involved (many years ago) looking at testing procedures with water
injection on petrol engines.

Almost all (probably all) fuel saver/performance boost add ons that
claim to affect the fuel externally, I.E. not actually added to the fuel
are high fraction snake oil.

Cheers TT forever sceptical ;-)

Funny, I'm a sceptical bugger too.

 

[Mr.T]

Photo-flash.

Actually many are less than 10kV and those that aren't use more than 0.1W
for a sustained output (non power saving shut down mode).
But hey, YOU can try putting a flash gun next to your fuel line and let us
know how much improvement you get

I think the law of conservation of energy might also have some effect, IF
you expect to change any amount of fuel viscosity in any measurable way.
Maybe they could try using a radioactive device instead?

MrT.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Exactly, fuel atomisation and fuel viscosity are different things.
The invention claims to reduce fuel viscosity, which *may* make a difference
to the economy in a limited number of cases, but the same effect can
probably be achieved in a number of other ways, some of which are probably
cheaper, and/or already being used.

MrT.

I presume it's easier to atomise a low viscosity fluid, so the two
things must be related. Just how much an effect a smaller droplet size
has on combustion efficiency would be debatable, though. I'm finding
it difficult to accept the researchers' claim that they reduced the
fuel consumption of a Mercedes-Benz diesel car (I wonder who supplied
it?) from 32mpg to 38mpg. Under city conditions they claim a fuel
saving of 12-15%, and on an engine dyno they claim that "the power
output was improved by about 20.4% at the same fuel consumption rate".

Assuming the results are genuine, this would suggest that combustion
in an unmodified engine is incomplete and that approximately 15% of
the fuel is normally burnt up in the exhaust. I find this hard, if not
impossible, to accept. Alternatively, it could be that better
atomisation results in a more efficient combustion flame. Perhaps an
adaptive ECU could back off the ignition advance if the flame were to
propagate faster (anti-knock), and maybe this is where the combustion
efficiencies come from ???

Or maybe it's just an elaborate scam.

BTW, I wonder how a car would fare with an injected engine against an
identical carburettored version? Presumably the former would have much
better fuel atomisation. Could one expect 10% or 20% lower fuel
consumption for the injected version? If not, then that would tend to
discredit the researchers' claims.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

The device that's generates a sustained 10kV using 0.1W would probably have
greater application

MrT.

In a petrol engine you could probably tap into the HV side of the
ignition coil. However, the researchers did not demonstrate any
measurable effect on the viscosity of unblended petrol, so one could
infer that their device has no application in petrol engined vehicles.

- Franc Zabkar