GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I remember JC Whitney selling a fuel line magnet that was supposed to do something similar with a magnetic field, but these guys seem to be using an electric field. The JC Whitney thing claimed to ionize the fuel molecules, while this one says it reduces viscosity somehow. Maybe next, these guys will prove that the Vornado works too.

I guess I can wait till November 19 to find out, but if any of our members in Pennsylvania know anything about this, please share...

"...In the new study, Rongjia Tao and colleagues describe development and testing of a new fuel economy booster. The small device consists of an electrically charged tube that can be attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector.

The device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. That leads to more efficient and cleaner combustion than a standard fuel injector, the researchers say.

Six months of road testing in a diesel car showed that the device increased highway fuel from 33 miles per gallon (mpg) to 37 mpg..."


http://www.physorg.com/news141915700.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,569 Posts
In for 5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
So it leans out your mixture? Goodbye engine durability (and emissions)

I love how people think automakers are withholding MPG from consumers. If fuel economy could be improved while still meeting longevity, emissions, and horsepower targets, it would be.

Look at what had to be done to the Cobalt XFE to get the fuel economy bump. If this thing actually worked, I'm sure GM would have loved to use this instead of spending $ on new tires, gear ratio changes, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
So it leans out your mixture? Goodbye engine durability (and emissions)

I love how people think automakers are withholding MPG from consumers. If fuel economy could be improved while still meeting longevity, emissions, and horsepower targets, it would be.

Look at what had to be done to the Cobalt XFE to get the fuel economy bump. If this thing actually worked, I'm sure GM would have loved to use this instead of spending $ on new tires, gear ratio changes, etc.
No this does not lean your mixture. The volume of fuel remains the same. This reduces the size of the fuel droplet when it vaporizes (it will increase the number of fuel droplets). This will increase the speed of combustion (flame propagation speed). This will mean that more fuel will be burned faster when the piston is at TDC and this will increase efficiency.

Combustion is not instantaneous. It one of the many reasons why the internal combustion engine is so inefficient.

As for this idea. I would like to see it proven out. The logic is there. Hopefully it's true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
This ones the real deal - and so far has the kind of process you'd want to see behind it.

Its for diesel - so far.


http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/asap/abs/ef8004898.html



ASAP Energy Fuels, ASAP Article, 10.1021/ef8004898
Web Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society

Electrorheology Leads to Efficient Combustion

R. Tao,* K. Huang, H. Tang, and D. Bell

Department of Physics, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122

Received June 20, 2008

Revised August 4, 2008

Abstract:

Improving engine efficiency and reducing pollutant emissions are extremely important. Here, we report our fuel injection technology based on the new physics principle that proper application of electrorheology can reduce the viscosity of petroleum fuels. A small device is thus introduced just before the fuel injection for the engine, producing a strong electric field to reduce the fuel viscosity, resulting in much smaller fuel droplets in atomization. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion. Both laboratory tests and road tests confirm our theory and indicate that such a device improves fuel mileage significantly. The technology is expected to have broad applications, applicable to current internal combustion engines and future engines as well.

Download the full text: PDF | HTML
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Sounds good. We will see if it really works, because if it does, then it will become standard on all new vehicles. Otherwise, instead of thinning out your fuel molecules, it will just thin out your wallet.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, just seen too much snake oil.

It does sound interesting though, and I really hope it actually works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
And at the bottom of the thread: BG 446 Restores mileage Boosts Performance. Just another snake oil product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Yep.

As the paper I linked indicates there is reason to believe as things now stand, results with 'diesel' are going to be more 'strongly improved' in the three main areas of interest.

Still worth a look for all - and can open some very interesting 'doors' down the road - for both - probably wider for spark ignition.

As always cost /benefit - somebody somewhere estimated 200$ per injector ? on diesel - which makes the grade either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
Why would "smaller droplets of fuel" matter in a diesel to the tune of a 4 mpg difference?

I am skeptical. The diesel doesn't rely on a spark to ignite an explosion. I though tit was the great cylinder pressure itself that made the power stroke. So again i fail to see how breaking down the fuel is gong to help. Not to mention I question how it can be done at all, and then squirted through a standard injector in its new form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
'Better' combustion - pretty much as per Mech Eng..'s post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Superchips can & do increase performance, sometimes one will even achieve better fuel economy as a result!


As for the other stuff, if it's too good to be true...
Yes, to all, but on that last......well, 20 years ago what we take for granted today was inconceivable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
Well, its generally considered a good idea to read the links before speculating - same thing regarding spelling ie before you finish your post.

Priceless.

This may explain a few things.......'not good' when you mix up both sets of jugs.

Big fan of the Superchip's model are we ?
You are going to lecture me on grammar? Nyce.....eye half scene it All. :rolleyes: I read the link buddy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
You are going to lecture me on grammar? Nyce.....eye half scene it All. :rolleyes: I read the link buddy.
Heck no - I know my limitations.

I will take a 'long' shot on spelling and editing - when you set it up like that.

Late add. Well that worked out just swell did it not ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
Heck no - I know my limitations.

I will take a shot on spelling and editing - when you set it up like that.

Oh, and definitely reading comprehension.

Somehow I have the feeling you don't really understand the topic here - the link thingie ain't it.
Yes, "tit" is funny, I get it.....or I ge tit.

About the topic...sometimes sarcasm is difficult to pick up in print. Either way, whether I took it as literal or not, I am trying to get a better understanding of how people could think it would work. I am not arguing with anyone...(except you about some bull isht), or trying to write proofs and theorems. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,371 Posts
Why would "smaller droplets of fuel" matter in a diesel to the tune of a 4 mpg difference?

I am skeptical. The diesel doesn't rely on a spark to ignite an explosion. I though tit was the great cylinder pressure itself that made the power stroke. So again i fail to see how breaking down the fuel is gong to help. Not to mention I question how it can be done at all, and then squirted through a standard injector in its new form.
You are correct about the power cycle of a diesel. By forming the fuel into smaller droplets, you exponentially increase it's surface area. Increasing the surface area increases the rate of combustion, and thus power and efficiency. Even in a diesel the combustion process isn't instantaneous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
I get it.....or I ge tit.

About the topic...sometimes sarcasm is difficult to pick up in print. Either way, whether I took it as literal or not, I am trying to get a better understanding of how people could think it would work. I am not arguing with anyone...(except you about some bull isht), or trying to write proofs and theorems. ;)
Ok, we're good to go - wait one..... gotta 'correct' my paperwork.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
You are correct about the power cycle of a diesel. By forming the fuel into smaller droplets, you exponentially increase it's surface area. Increasing the surface area increases the rate of combustion, and thus power and efficiency. Even in a diesel the combustion process isn't instantaneous.
In support - and for Euohazard's questions - taken from the paper linked above:

1. Introduction

It is more and more urgent and important now to improve engine efficiency and reduce pollutant emissions. While some progress in this area has been made since fuel injection technology was developed, internal combustion engines are still a long way from being clean and efficient.

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. This concept has been widely accepted because the discussions about the future engine for efficient and clean combustion are focused on ultra-dilute mixtures at extremely high pressure to produce much finer mist of fuel for combustion.1–3
Now, tech #1
Along this direction, for example, 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. Although 100 bar is not extreme pressure yet, this injector, known as the Delphi Multec 10 GDi muli-hole fuel injector,4 would require substantial changes of the fuel lines in vehicles, because current gasoline vehicles can only sustain a fuel pressure less than 3 bar.

Unfortunately, the new combustion technology with extreme pressure is still under development and not applicable to current engines because they cannot sustain such high pressure.
Oh, and for the anti magnet people......tech #2

Another possible technology is electrostatic atomization, which makes all fuel droplets negatively charged.5–7 The droplet size will be small if the charge density on the droplets is high, and no agglomeration would occur because the negatively charged droplets repel each other. Up to date, electrostatic atomization technology has not been employed on any fuel system, not to say any vehicles. The main reason is that electrostatic atomization technology requires special fuel injectors, which are totally different from any existing fuel injectors on vehicles. It requires a high voltage directly applied to the nozzle and the emitter cathode emitting negative charges to pass the fuel to the anode. To employ such a fuel injector on vehicles is not easy. There are also concerns that such sprays may consume high electric power.
Now tech #3 - the topic of this thread.

Here, we present our technology for efficient combustion based on the new physics principle that proper application of electrorheology can reduce the viscosity of petroleum fuels. A small device is thus introduced, producing a strong electric field to reduce the viscosity of petroleum fuels just before the fuel atomization. This viscosity reduction leads to much smaller fuel droplets and cleaner and more efficient combustion. Our device could be easily applied on current engines to improve their efficiency. Both laboratory and road tests confirm our theory and indicate that such a device improves fuel mileage significantly. The technology is expected to have broad applications, to current internal combustion engines and future engines as well.
Then integrate - this very useful very close approximation
No this does not lean your mixture. The volume of fuel remains the same. This reduces the size of the fuel droplet when it vaporizes (it will increase the number of fuel droplets). This will increase the speed of combustion (flame propagation speed). This will mean that more fuel will be burned faster when the piston is at TDC and this will increase efficiency.

Combustion is not instantaneous. It one of the many reasons why the internal combustion engine is so inefficient.
and this -

You are correct about the power cycle of a diesel. By forming the fuel into smaller droplets, you exponentially increase it's surface area. Increasing the surface area increases the rate of combustion, and thus power and efficiency. Even in a diesel the combustion process isn't instantaneous.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top