Using electric field to thin fuel

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.

Graham

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.

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

Cheers TT

Ah-hah ... That's what I always suspected!!

Bob

It was an attempt at registering the sound as a trademark, not a patent, and they dropped the idea over 8 years ago........

the_dawggie wrote: Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Make sure you get it right MODIFIED turbo diesel Hilux with Arctic compatible fuel

Kev

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

Kev

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

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:41:51 +1100, "Mr.T" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

- Franc Zabkar

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:44:59 +1100, "Mr.T" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:45:28 +1100, terryc put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

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 ...

... 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

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 11:05:00 +0900, "TT" put finger to keyboard and composed:

Heating is costly.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

- Franc Zabkar

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.

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

Atomisation.

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

Bye. Jasen

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

:>>

:>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.

That part isn't rocket science. Of course engines run best with fuel that's in a particularly heaviness range. The question is whether an electric field can cause the change in properties. Given the amount of effort an energy that's used in standard refining processes that reshape hydrocarbon molecules, I doubt that just an electric field could have much effect.

If there's a buck in it, trust noone. Tim Johnston is the living proof. It's just as easy for the con artists to put on spectacles and sit in front of a desk with books behind it as it is for them to throw pissups for footy teams.

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.

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.

Tim

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.