Using electric field to thin fuel

[Eeyore]

The Doctor wrote:

Wonder why no one has thought of this before!

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

Because only fuckwits would believe in it ?

Graham

 

[TT]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:490D9613.FFB0CD72@hotmail.com...

TT wrote:

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

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.

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

 

[Bob Parker]

On 2/11/2008 23:17 TT wrote:

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

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

Bob

 

[Kwyjibo]

"TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:_qadnSywa9D2B5DUnZ2dnUVZ8sjinZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:490D9613.FFB0CD72@hotmail.com...


TT wrote:

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

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.

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

--
Kwyj.

 

[Kev]

Mr.T wrote:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:v9opg4hg0nb8lpuv6nhnoema2tgict4g7s@4ax.com...
Or wouldn't you at least to expect to see it in F1 racing?
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 ...

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.

 

[Kev]

the_dawggie wrote:
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Well 'lux turbo diesel made it to North Pole.

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

Kev

 

[Kev]

The Doctor wrote:

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]

TT wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:490D9613.FFB0CD72@hotmail.com...

TT wrote:

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

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]

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

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:v9opg4hg0nb8lpuv6nhnoema2tgict4g7s@4ax.com...
Or wouldn't you at least to expect to see it in F1 racing?

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 ...

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

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:45:28 +1100, terryc
<newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:20:48 +1100, Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:52:24 +0900, "TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au> put
finger to keyboard and composed:


"The Doctor" <doctor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4937EE2C43AdocwhoATbigpondDOTne@61.9.191.5...
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.

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.

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?"

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

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

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:vmnpg49rkv2vluvoic803ocnnv37gd8n8e@4ax.com...
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"
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i05/html/ef060072x.ht
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
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 11:05:00 +0900, "TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:vmnpg49rkv2vluvoic803ocnnv37gd8n8e@4ax.com...

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"
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i05/html/ef060072x.html


Heating it up will achieve the same result ;-)

Heating is costly.

This is a Wikipedia article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrorheological_fluid

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.

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 ľm 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

- Franc Zabkar

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

 

[Bernd Felsche]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

TT wrote:

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

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
--
/"\ 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

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-11-02, TT <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au> wrote:

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 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:20:48 +1100, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net>
wrote:

:On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:52:24 +0900, "TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au>
ut finger to keyboard and composed:
:
:>
:>"The Doctor" <doctor@nospam.com> wrote in message
:>news:Xns9B4937EE2C43AdocwhoATbigpondDOTne@61.9.191.5...
:>> 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

 

[Bruce Varley]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.11.02.01.45.27.717227@woa.com.au...

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:20:48 +1100, Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:52:24 +0900, "TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au
put
finger to keyboard and composed:


"The Doctor" <doctor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4937EE2C43AdocwhoATbigpondDOTne@61.9.191.5...
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.

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"

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.

<snip>

 

[Mr.T]

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:uarrg41ehr4ij6q1dhj5v40v63rpn43v0t@4ax.com...

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]

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:215sg4hqlj0b2t308k6iot0a4ahiqc3pf9@4ax.com...

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 ľm 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]

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:9eetg49ui68bi879s6s4vp66l40biom6u9@4ax.com...

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.

 

[TT]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gem7vt$6sj$2@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2008-11-02, TT <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au> wrote:

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

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