Using electric field to thin fuel

Hasn't this (similar) been done to death before?

-- Kipland.

A bottle of snake oil ?

--
Regards
Dan.

Hasn't this (similar) been done to death before?

-- Kipland.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A design was made years ago for this, although it wasn't an electric charged type Think they used magnets to re-arrange the molecular structure of the fuel.

Something like Peter Brocks magic box

Because its bullshit?

It has been done before and will be done again. It is all bullshit.

Here is a basic test to apply to any device like this that you see advertised. "If a simple device like this could deliver even a 5% increase in fuel economy don't you think GM, Ford, Toyota etc would snap it up and put it on their vehicles?" These guys spend Billions on more fuel efficient vehicles and you really think some nut case in a back room can do a better job? Or wouldn't you at least to expect to see it in F1 racing?

Cheers TT

As long as there are gullible people with money anyway. You can more easily "thin the fuel" by simply routing the fuel line closer to the exhaust manifold anyway (not that it will improve economy though, unless possibly the car was running too rich to start with, only if modern electronic fuel injection and EG sensors are not in use) However the fire risk may increase though :-)

Hell a 1% *genuine* increase in fuel economy would be enough. But they have proper test benches to accurately measure fuel consumption at all load levels, something the snake oilers never bother with.

Peter Brock used it on his car didn't he :-) :-)

MrT.

It would seem that academia will resort to anything for the sake of publicity these days!... You'd also have to wonder what effect money might have on their "principles".

Perhaps John McCain will fix it! ;-)

--
John H

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:29:55 GMT, The Doctor put finger to keyboard and composed:

The following article refers to two sets of tests, one by the researchers, the other by an Italian diesel engine manufacturer:

"Electrorheology Leads to Efficient Combustion"

R. Tao,* K. Huang, H. Tang, and D. Bell Department of Physics, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19122

This is a more technical article on rheology by the same researchers. It is aimed at reducing the viscosity of crude oil for transportation via pipelines:

"Reducing the Viscosity of Crude Oil by Pulsed Electric or Magnetic Field"

This is a Wikipedia article on the subject:

I notice that Tao's group has used a diesel Mercedes-Benz as their test subject. Why not a petrol engined Chevrolet sedan? It seems to me that the planet-saving potential of his magic device would be maximised in the consumer car market.

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."

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:52:24 +0900, "TT" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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.

The researchers claim that one Italian diesel engine manufacturer has tested the device and obtained a 5% improvement on the dyno.

The researchers are physicists based at a university.

It couldn't even be tested without serious modification. The researchers found that at 1900 RPM the optimum electric field was

1kV/mm, and the minimum time required for the fluid to be subjected to the field was 5 seconds. The fuel flow under racing conditions would be an order of magnitude greater, which would mean that the device would need to be much longer. Of course you could have one small device per cylinder ...

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.

**In very cold conditions, decreasing the viscosity of Diesel makes sense. It has been done before. These guys:

Have some excellent products. Formerly Raychem.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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"

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?

Heating it up will achieve the same result ;-)

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.

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

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.

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 ;-)

Cheers TT forever sceptical ;-)

"Trust me, I used to be a used car salesman before I started flogging this shit" :-)) That is the usual scenario.

Cheers TT

.

Well 'lux turbo diesel made it to North Pole.

-- Kipland.

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.

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.

I'll bet they used a fuel additive though! (Commonly added to diesel in all extremely cold climates.)

MrT.

That'd be called "petrol".

-- /"\\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in X against HTML mail | the ignorance of the experts. / \\ and postings | -- Richard Feynman

Tsk! Tsk! You can't see the relevance between the Trans Siberian Oil Pipeline, transporting near frozen crude oil and a modern petrol engine?! :-))

BTW I do hope you (and others) read my comments on modern fuel injection systems work on the mass of the fuel and not the volume. Even modern common rail diesel engines are now computer controlled and even take into account the fuel temp before injection.

What most here are losing sight of is that in this day and age with stringent emission standards (diesel and petrol) fuel economy is the bonus. Too lean a mixture and CO, NOx emissions go up, too rich and hydrocarbons are flung out the exhaust. So therefore perfect combustion at optimum fuel ratio is not only desirable but a must.

I don't care what this device claims to do for IC engines it just can't happen at the percentages they claim!

Cheers TT