Using electric field to thin fuel

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

Reply to
TT
Loading thread data ...

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:59:14 +0900, "TT" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.
Reply to
Franc Zabkar

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:02:23 +1100, Franc Zabkar put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.
Reply to
Franc Zabkar

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

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

Photo-flash.

--
/"\\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bernd Felsche

have

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.

Reply to
Mr.T

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:24:45 +1100, "Mr.T" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.
Reply to
Franc Zabkar

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:50:57 +1100, "Mr.T" put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.
Reply to
Franc Zabkar

If Iran gets its way then in the future all the fuel from there will be radioactive any way ;-)

Cheers TT

Reply to
TT

I doubt the extremely short pulse generated by a HT coil would be adequate for normal fuel flow in any case, even if it was shown to have any advantage on petrol. A *sustained* field is required, but good try though :-).

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

so use a half-wave rectifier.

Bye. Jasen

Reply to
Jasen Betts

adequate

advantage

That will turn an extremely short pulse into a sustained field how exactly?

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.