Using electric field to thin fuel

[Franc Zabkar]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:59:14 +0900, "TT" <TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

"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

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.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:02:23 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

 

[Mr.T]

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:35iug4pieiplqtf8f77570a6gn35b2i86n@4ax.com...

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]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

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

Photo-flash.
--
/"\ 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

 

[Clint Sharp]

In message <IredndG1Y_9Il5DUnZ2dnUVZ8o2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au>, TT
<TTencerNoSpAm@westnet.com.au> writes

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

- Franc Zabkar

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.

--
Clint Sharp

 

[Mr.T]

"Bernd Felsche" <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:rlf5u5xoqp.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...

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

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]

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

"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.

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.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:35iug4pieiplqtf8f77570a6gn35b2i86n@4ax.com...
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.

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.

 

[TT]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:491024f6$0$28212$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

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.

If Iran gets its way then in the future all the fuel from there will be

radioactive any way ;-)

Cheers TT

 

[Mr.T]

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:ic11h4d3shgbccnsvqhgid6d94loelgc6m@4ax.com...

In a petrol engine you could probably tap into the HV side of the
ignition coil.

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.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-11-06, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:ic11h4d3shgbccnsvqhgid6d94loelgc6m@4ax.com...
In a petrol engine you could probably tap into the HV side of the
ignition coil.

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 .

so use a half-wave rectifier.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Mr.T]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gf0lpr$m9t$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

In a petrol engine you could probably tap into the HV side of the
ignition coil.

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 .

so use a half-wave rectifier.

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

MrT.

 

[Eeyore]

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