Slashdot Mirror
Simple Device Claimed To Boost Fuel Efficiency By Up To 20%
Ponca City, We love you writes "Temple University physics professor Rongjia Tao has developed a simple device that could dramatically improve fuel efficiency in automobiles by as much as 20 percent. The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion. Six months of road testing in a diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz automobile showed an increase from 32 miles per gallon to 38 mpg, a 20 percent boost, and a 12-15 percent gain in city driving. 'We expect the device will have wide applications on all types of internal combustion engines, present ones and future ones,' Tao wrote in the study published in Energy & Fuels. 'This discovery promises to significantly improve fuel efficiency in all types of internal combustion engine powered vehicles and at the same time will have far-reaching effects in reducing pollution of our environment,' says Larry F. Lemanski, Senior Vice President for Research and Strategic Initiatives at Temple."
Snakeoil as has been evidenced with piles of other products that claim to do the same thing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Until we measure in kilometers per milliliter, it's just a drop in the bucket.
Instead of investing in "science" solutions (99.99% of all science research goes absolutely nowhere) why not implement an easy solution - drill for our oil offshore and in Alaska, and prevent us sending billions to countries which don't like us very much.
Sorry. This sounds way too much like "the tornado" and various other devices with magnets that you put around the fuel line. This stuff has been around for years, and it's pseudo-science. With pressure to meet CAFE standards, don't you think Detroit would have deployed such tech years ago if it really worked? Cue the Detroit-BigOil-AxisOfEvil conspiracy theorists in 3... 2... 1...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm not a car person, but my impression is that if you go to Europe you'll find that off-the-shelf cars are a lot more fuel-efficient than off-the-shelf cars
in America.
They should be available in America but they are not.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine.
So, where is the electricity for this electric field coming? Let us hope it doesn't waste the fuel it just saved.
The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine.
Oh come on please stop it. This has been busted.
There has been wave of fuel efficient bikes in India after Honda introduced 'Hero Honda' bike with fuel efficiency as high as 60 Kmpl (142 miles per galon). Before that 2 wheelers had peak efficiency of 25-20 Kmpl (70mpg).
Vehicles with fuel efficiency as high as 100Kmpl (236 mpg) have been launched by some companies. I always wondered what made it possible and what technology they use.
hilarious
This same "scientist" was promoting a magnetic device to do the same thing two years ago.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/03/erin-brockovich-gets-your-attention-but-can-magnets-improve-fue/
Strange that we don't all have them bolted to our engines by now...
By fitting slightly larger wheels (for better overall gearing and lower rolling resistance) and good low-roll res tyres on a vehicle this sort of efficiency gain is achievable without any suspicious attachments to the system.
I suspect unless the tests done with this gadget were blind tests on unsuspecting users, the test-effect where the driver knows at some level that they are meant to be driving efficiently is largely responsible.
The gains seen could easily have been created just through good driving techniques such as decelerating in high gear, timing acceleration to coincide with flat or downhill roads, not revving or idling when stationary, etc
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
While some cars sold here run better on premium fuel (and sufficiently so to defray the higher cost entirely) no cars are sold in the UK that cannot run on regular 95-RON petrol (gasoline), as it is the ubiquitous standard and in some places, all thats available. Your argument does hold true with diesels but because of sulphur not octane/cetane
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
1. Snake oil.
2. Fuel injectors do a pretty good job atomizing fuel
3. Modern cars do not need another random electric field
4. Where is the double blind testing?
I've got one of these and together with the fuel line magnets, electric turbocharger and hydrogen generator I have fitted I find the gas tank actually fills as I drive!
The news is by regular university, not a company selling you miracle devices. They did patent it, meaning that they are not afraid to disclose how it works.
I did search for the basic claim that you can alter viscosity by eletric fields and found an article accepted in 2006 by a respected journal:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i05/abs/ef060072x.html
Anyway I would not buy some device before it is installed by default by some major manufacturer on a new car. MPG does sell cars today, so if they ignore this new invention, I can do too.
OK, going to increase my mileage by doing it myself, I'll just hook up some battery cables to my fuel lines to charge the gas. Alrighty then, black lead to ground, other end to fuel line. Check. Red lead to positive terminal, check. Now, I'll complete the circuit, just let me affix the read lead to the fuel l
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The way to demonstrate these things in a rigorous manner isn't to bolt them on a car and drive them around for a few months.
The way to do so is to bolt them into a test rig, where the engine can be placed under load in a precisely controlled manner, under identical conditions, as many times as required.
There are any number of universities (and, presumably, independent labs) which have such test rigs.
Until this device has been tested under such conditions, and given the extensive history of "fuel saving" devices which do no such thing, it's safe to assume this is snake oil.
That said, I gather Temple is a reputable university, and one does not get to be chair of Physics at such a university without a track record of quality research.
Either Prof. Tao is a genius who has done the seemingly impossible, the PR flack who did this press release has horribly misinterpreted the study and Prof. Tao, or Prof. Tao should start clearing out his desk forthwith for embarrassing the university.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
MOD PARENT UP!! Good link. Nice photo of Erin Brockovich. LOL.
Quote from the paper referenced in the Slashdot story: "Using the mismatch in the dielectric constant or magnetic permeability between the suspended particles and the base liquid, we can apply an electric or magnetic field to aggregate the small particles into large ones."
What? The "magnetic permeability" of a non-magnetic substance?
I'd have thought that a modern engine is designed with an assumption of a certain viscosity of fuel, and more or less viscosity would make it less efficient.
Still, it would be wrong to reject this out of hand. Find an independent judge to rig up two new cars on a rolling road, one with and one without the device, and compare fuel consumption. Swap the device over periodically to be sure.
People are spouting off Snake oil accusations at this without even reading the paper or doing any background checking. Trying to look not-gulible with uninformed cynicism only show you to be a fool.
The paper is peer reviewed and sites other peer reviewed sources of the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The Fuel efficiency tests are performed with a dynamometer a scientific torque and power measuring device which couples directly to the wheels of a car suspended off the ground, no human driving bias is introduced.
This is a significant find and I'm sure it will be incorporated into future vehicles. Unfortunately Detroit will use it to provide higher horsepower instead of fuel efficiency just like every every advancement in the last 30 years.
Has anyone noticed the Scientology ads on Slashdot? What have we come to, Scientology sponsored Slashdot...
Half the reason my new fuel efficient car gets better mileage is because it has a fuel efficiency measurement and I try to improve it. Result: I drive differently than I do in the other car.
The only way to see if these devices really work is to see if they improve efficiency when the people don't know they are there.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Its a peer reviewed paper from a major chemical journal, the sited papers are of the same class.
The tests are performed with a dynamometer, thats a scientific instrument for measuring torque and mechanical power. A car is typically lifted off the ground, the wheel removed and the input shaft of the dynamometer attached. All acusations of driver bias is uninformed BS from people who haven't read the paper in the link.
That paper is very poorly written, at least.
the 1990 Geo Metro XFI got 44/53 mpg city/hwy.
The problem I see with this device (and by extension any device or method used to improve gas-mileage in vehicles powered by fossil-fuels) is that it just serves to extend a technology that should've been abandoned decades ago.
Rather than solving the problem, i.e. our dependency on fossil-fuels, we are treating the symptoms of it.
This is just a band-aid. We're ignoring the fact that our vehicles need to be powered by something sustainable. This is where the research should be pointed - to alternate forms of energy for our cars. Not to prolong this addiction to gasoline.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
60+ posts all yelling snake oil, all from people clearly with little or no engine experience.
While this may or may not be snake oil, the theory behind the gain is sound -- I don't know if people missed or don't understand that he's talking about diesel engines, not gasoline or understand that diesel is basically oil, its considerably more viscous than gasoline is.
Atomization of diesel has always been an issue with it. There's a reason the engines heat the fuel (the opposite of what you do with gasoline) before injecting into the engine -- it helps thin it down and helps atomization.
I can't say what a magnetic field may or may not do to it -- possibly nothing, perhaps something about the way he rigged it is simply heating the fuel.
Knee jerk reactions, however, from people who clearly don't understand how diesel engines work, is more useless than a snakeoil charlatan -- because real innovations can be lost.
Perfect example: I had someone tell me that a particular half in thick plate made of some sort of composite plastic that goes between a carburetor and intake manifold on a car was snake oil just like the "turbo twist" or whatever those metal fins sold to go in an engines intake.
The guy didn't understand how carbs work -- didn't understand how much heat a plate like that blocks from the fuel bowl in the carb, or how much the increased linear path through the carb helps to stabilize the atomization of fuel, making it burn more consistently. So he was calling snake oil on a part that, frankly, is a requirement on a carbed engine.
So everyone, be skeptical but holy crap, chill out. As yourself if your opinion is educated before you go assuming its correct.
Just mount the biggest sub woofer you can find under the hood and put on some Metallica. If you're into oldies Smoke on the Water works pretty well but the efficiency tends to vary with the beat.
This needs real testing to back it up.
I've never heard of electricity reducing a liquids viscosity, but then again, I've never heard of that being tested either.
I'm not immediately lumping this with the voodoo magnets since it would obviously run under much higher energy levels than fridge magnets. (Or even rare earth magnets.)
Assuming the device actually works, and does provide a 10%-20% efficiency boost, get that sucker to market quick and cheap. License it for engine manufacturers and make it available for aftermarket sales. And to emphasize it, do it Cheap! You'll make up the profit through volume, (Economics 101), and the overall benefit to the public will earn you lots of brownie points that can be spent on your next project.
or the oil execs will make sure to outlaw this now ;)
Seriously tho... one wonders why billions of dollars and minds couldnt have improved efficiency years ago... :-) for simple solutions to benefit all.
Come on scientists, work a little harder
Now we just need managers to approve this research, and not just cup holders.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Give me a break. Sorry, the "big" car guys, GM, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes, et al know the physics of combustion very well.
I have been chasing the problem in my spare time for years. I remember an invention I had in high school auto-shop, in 1978 (I was an electronics nerd and gear head) of drilling hole in a distributor cap, fastening a mirror to the rotor and using opto-electronics to detect the rotation and fire a small coil for each spark plug. I was able to run the car without a high voltage distributor. I should have patented it, because cars more or less work like that now. Anyway, I digress.
"Droplet Size" has been handled quite effectively by increasing the fuel injector pressure in the newer cars.
You aren't going to come up with a solution those guys haven't thought about. The only thing you can do is come up with an invention that they are unable to sell. Look at something like Nitrous Oxide or some other oxidizer, now, if you beef up a four cylinder engine to take the increased torque and rework the carboration/fuel injection control so that it is a seamless boost, you could run a much bigger car on a much smaller engine. Most cars are very fuel efficient while running, but suck down gas on acceleration. The over all fuel economy is how much gas a vehicle needs to maintain its speed, and the amount of power required to do that is a fraction of the capability of the engine, but to get the acceleration you need, you need the extra displacement.
So, even though you may need a 5.2 liters of engine displacement for performance, you need far less for maintaining speed, so why not start small with a four cylinder, and use something like NOS to bridge the difference? That's what a turbo or a super charger does. By compressing the air into the intake system, you are making your 4 cylinders effectively larger by allowing them to take in more air and fuel. Turbos, however, have a bad but improving performance curve. They have nothing at the start, and "lag" performance over a bigger motor. NOS doesn't suffer that problem.
So, if you can find a cheap and plentiful and safe oxidizer gas and can make the boost clean, you'll be rich.
add 2 x 250lb adults and a fat kid or three, and theres an extra 1000 to haul.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If a university professor is willing to put his reputation on the line, it is reason enough to try and reproduce the results. If that fails... ...I think Fleischmann and Pons can tell you what that does to your career ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
At the bottom --
====
Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by RAND and STWA.
====
Well, we all know who RAND is. What is STWA?
Apparently it's "Save the World Air Inc". Oh and look at that they happen to sell a product that does *exactly* what this "research" paper is about.
Sad what's happened to academic research.
I've read of the exact same thing tried inside the cylinder but they were never able to get it to improve efficiency and that was inside the cylinder. I find it hard to believe the change is surface tension would be translated through the fuel injectors. I believe they tried using sonic shockwaves to break the surface tension but it either had no affect or I seem to remember it loosing efficiency because the sonic waves tended to make the fuel "clump" like rain drops colliding. It's been a few years and I can't remember the specifics but I remember it was a failure and as I said that was inside the cylinder.
As a couple of others have pointed out, as far back as the mid 70s we had cars whose MPG blew away today's standards.
WTF? You'd think we could have actually improved MPG in 30 years, but what do I know.
Hear, hear! Double blind testing is vital in a case like this, or the placebo effect might muddy the results. It is not enough to not tell the engine if it is being fitted by an actual device of this kind, or just a lookalike made from sugar - single blind testing. The people interacting with the engine must also be unaware, or it might subconsciously pick up clues from their behaviour, telling it if the device is real or not.
"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/
As others have said before me, this sounds like pure 100% Unalduterated Snake Oil.
Now we just wait for the infomercial.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
The excerpted patent abstract:
A method for increasing and/or modulating the yield shear stress of an electrorheological
fluid includes applying a sufficient electric field to the fluid to cause the formation
of chains of particles, and then applying a sufficient pressure to the fluid to cause
thickening or aggregation of the chains. An apparatus for increasing and/or modulating
the transfer or force or torque between two working structures includes an electrorheological
fluid and electrodes through which an electric field is applied to the fluid such that
particles chains of particles are formed in the fluid and, upon application of pressure to
the fluid, the chains thicken or aggregate and improve the force or torque transmission.
The flow characteristics of an ER fluid change when an electric field is applied through it.
The ER fluid responds to the applied electric field by what can be described as progressively
gelling. More specifically, the ER fluid is generally comprised of a carrier fluid, such as
pump oil, silicone oil, mineral oil, or chlorinated paraffin. Fine particles, such as polymers,
minerals, or ceramics, are suspended in the carrier fluid. When an electric field is applied
through the ER fluid, positive and negative charges on the particles separate, thus giving
each particle a positive end and a negative end. The suspended particles are then attracted
to each other and form chains leading from one electrode to the other. These chains of particles
cause the ER fluid to "gel" in the electric field between the electrodes in proportion to the
magnitude of the applied electric field.
The other reference is interesting and can be seen here:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i05/abs/ef060072x.html
although it appears to apply to crude oil and not low viscosity fluids like gas and diesel.
How does this apply to gas or Diesel? Both which do not meet the definition of a electrorheological fluid.
Is this yet another scam, using scientific research to bolster claims for snake oil sellers to peddle
even more expensive sets of fuel line magnets?
This is rather interesting -- it looks like it could potentially be of interest, even if the efficiency gain is exaggerated. The concept is based around the principle used in Electrospray and Electrospinning.
The ability to produce very fine particle sizes is intriguing -- I am interested in what this could do for applications where the fuel is even thicker than diesel, such as furnaces and ships which use heavy fuel oils. In such cases the oil is so viscous it must be pre-heated prior to use to make it thin enough to pump. Apart from possible efficiency impact, there is the matter of emissions. I would be interested to know what type of impact this type of technology would do to the number and size distribution of soot particles produced.
Non-technical people with simple minds who always breathe through their mouths hear the words "magnet" and they get confused and think "magic." Whenever I see someone wearing a magnetic bracelet, my view of their intelligence drops substantially. The problem also exists with overhead power lines and cell phones. People hear the phrase "electromagnetic energy" and they act like someone is pointing a cancer ray gun at their head.
Note: In Europe if you are riding in a car for more than 5 minutes that's unusual, everything is very compact over there because their cities were built up before the automobile. Probably for the same reason they also don't have the same "road trip" mentality we do. I have a friend from England who was shocked that we drove 40 minutes to visit friends, noting that she drove 40 minutes about 5 times a year. They are much more insular than Americans are.
STWA, Inc. and Temple University Announce Results in Testing of Fuel Technology
Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:00pm EDT
Featured Broker sponsored link
MORGAN HILL, CA, Mar 12 (MARKET WIRE) --
Save The World Air, Inc. ("STWA") (OTCBB: ZERO) today announced
significant test results in the development of applications relating to our
electronic fuel product and crude oil treatment technology known as Elektra.
STWA holds an exclusive worldwide license for the Elektra technology from Temple
University of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ("Temple").
Dr. Rongjia Tao, Temple's principal researcher of the Elektra technology,
reported
that in recent dynamometer testing of the technology applied on a used
diesel automobile, performance improved 20%.
Yes, the theory is plausible. That does not make it correct. For one thing, diesel engines are totally different in their fuel management from gasoline engines. What works on one is extremely unlikely to work on the other.
Second, reducing fuel surface tension is already very old news. Additives (detergents) already do this and hydrocarbon fuels already have very low surface tension compared to water.
While [plausible, the theory does not stand scutiny. Diesel fuel has very low dipole moments and is not affected by magnetic or electric fields. If it were, the tiny (micron) passages inside a modern CDI injector would ground/neutralize it anyways. This report is particularly bad since they do not record/report any decrease in exhaust temperature, a necessary sign of increased efficiency (work extraction from heat energy).
Save The World Air, Inc. ("STWA") (OTCBB: ZERO)
Stock Price: 29 cents, down 3 cents. High was $1 in March.
Snake oil.
Chart of ZERO stock symbol
For a number of reasons.
First of all the work is devoid of hype, mysterious "black boxes", is well-documented, links to established physics known since 1905 and 1959, and actually gives a credible explanation, verified in detail, of why we are seeing this improvement.
Secondly, prof. Tao's work spans at lest 2 years, witness this http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i05/pdf/ef060072x.pdf?sessid=2827 article, by the same prof. Tao, from 2006. In that publication, the authors properly relate their own work to much earlier theoretical work on viscosity (from 1905) that describes how viscosity of a fluid changes if you suspend a small amount of non-interacting spherical particles in it and later work (1959 by Krieger and Dougherty) on how much the viscosity changes. when you suspend a not-so-small amount of particles. The earlier work was backed up by experiments.
So up to that point we have the "thinning" effect on viscosity by suspending inert particles in a fluid, and it's solid physics to boot. Now what does this all have to do with magnetic or electric fields?
Well, it turns out that the thinning effect depends on the size of the particles you suspend in it. That's not so surprising either, and (again) experimentally verifiable.
Now here comes the trick: if you take a fluid that has large molecules in it that can be polarised by an electric or magnetic field that is strong enough to orient the particles despite the Brownian motion, you will see that short-distance order emerges in clusters of polarised molecules within the liquid. The net effect is as if you were seeding the liquid with particles. Now that's interesting. If you leave on the field for several minutes, the short-distance order extends a bit and you get fairly large ordered structures within your fluid, leading to an increase in viscosity. So there is an effect, but if you leave the field on for a long time it makes your liquid more viscous, not less. However, and this is the second trick, if you switch off the field soon enough, the molecules have enough time to become so polarised that short-distance order ensues, but not long-distance order. The net effect is that the "particles" (in reality small clusters of polarised and more-or-less ordered molecules) remain small. This effect is described in detail and the article describes tests that verified the effect. The level of detail coupled to the careful description of the underlying physics again make this claim credible.
And yes, with enough fiddling you seem to be able to tune your field strength and pulse duration so that you get an amount of polarised clusters that will measurably decrease the viscosity of your liquid. By about 9% or so. That seems pretty solid too.
Now about the applications. The first thing they though about was decreasing the viscosity of crude oil in pipelines. That will save a little energy if you're pumping lots of viscous oil through long cold pipelines. Nine percent isn't nothing, but it's not a great gain either. That was the state of affairs reported in Tao's 2006 paper.
The second application (Tao's 2009 paper) however is in internal combustion engines. As the article avers, lower viscosity leads to smaller droplets when fuels is injected. And smaller droplets seem to cause a cleaner and more efficient combustion. In fact, the authors report tests on a diesel engine by Cornaglia Iveco that showed a 5.5% efficiency improvement. Of course this result still has to be confirmed by independent tests, but its modest claims and well-publicised details make it thoroughly credible.
To produce the final results, the authors modified their device and claim to have obtained 20% efficiency improvement on a Mercedes-Benz diesel engine. The centerpiece
I think your friend is the special case. 40 minutes to visit friends is nothing. What we think is silly is driving for an hour or more each way in a commute.
Oil/filter change, air filter change, fuel filter change, maybe some new spark plugs, a bottle or two of Techron fuel injector cleaner (don't add more than one per tank of gas though and do it after the fuel filter change), and make sure those tires are properly inflated. Many cars are not properly maintained and mileage suffers (by as much as 10-20%).
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=ca-en&FC2=/ca-en/html/iwgen/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/ca-en/html/iwgen/shell_for_motorists/fuels/diesel/diesel_properties_shared.html
"Viscosity is a measure of a liquid's resistance to flow under pressure and is dependent upon temperature. At higher temperature, the viscosity of the fuel decreases and at lower temperature its viscosity increases. Viscosity of diesel fuel influences engine performance in two ways: injection pump and injector performance, and injected fuel spray pattern and atomization.
A very low viscosity fuel can cause internal leakages in the injection pump causing low pressure build up resulting to fuel starvation in the combustion chamber of the engine. This could also lead to undesirable spray pattern that promotes incomplete combustion. Fuel starvation and incomplete combustion will both contribute to reduced power and excessive emission. A very low viscosity fuel also causes excessive wear in the injection system and poor hot re-start.
On the other hand, a very high viscosity fuel will cause poor atomization during injection. As a result, the fuel is not evenly distributed in the combustion chamber to mix well with the air - a requisite for good combustion."
It appears that a magnet (electric or otherwise) will have little effect:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Chemical-Engineering-3248/2008/2/magnets.htm
Sounds like a fuel line heating element linked to the onboard computer would be more effective.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Want to massively improve fuel consumption nationwide? Make a fuel consumption meter mandatory in all cars. The display should show real-time consumption and average over the last fifty miles, in a prominent place.
I'm betting overall driving style would improve dramatically if people could see their consumption as they drive into the gas station forecourt.
No sig today...
6'5. 2000 Civic. Many thousands of miles.
And anyway, there are tall people in Europe, as well.
I'm not even that tall at 6'4 and it's near intolerable to ride in one for more than 5 minutes.
So you are taller than 99.5% of the male population and you think you are some kind of representative sample? 6'3" is around 2 standard deviations above the mean.
Yes tall people have a problem. A former business partner of mine was 6'7" (that's 2 meters for you metric types) and so he drove a large vehicle. It was comical watching him get into the Saturn I had at the time. But he was a weird case. Average male height in the US is around 5'9".
Mythbusters tested magnets, this is an electric field. It's a completely different thing
The force in question is electromagnatism. Two sides of the same coin.
First problem, if electric fields reduced viscosity or surface tension, it would have been discovered like 100 years ago. Thousands of scientists have put stuff in electric fields. it's mighty unlikely none of them noticed this effect.
Secondly, there are totally free and reliable ways of reducing viscosity, like wrapping the fuel line around the exhaust manifold. Free, does not require any fancy electronics, and has the added benefit of actually working.
then figure out a way to make the internal combustion engine more efficient.
most of the energy created in one is wasted through the radiator and the block itself. IIRC, most modern enegines are only, at the most, 15% efficient.
if someone can make a diesel engine that uses most of its energy, then we'll start talking about fuel saving measures
I read both the blurb and the published journal article. One thing that impresses me is the clear language used to describe the work. Tao explains both the basic theory and testing method succinctly - even a no-math guy like me understood it clearly. He even accounts for the difference between the Iveco tests and the dynamometer results. The science is very clear. I had a lot of research methods training as an undergrad and I really can't poke any holes in the article. The best research reports are simple, short and narrow in scope; this paper is all 3.
The really exciting part is the simplicity of the method. Hell, you could probably build one of these things yourself. If it pans out, and it looks like it should, this is a big deal.
Go Temple Owls!! (disclosure: I'm an alum)
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Don't know if it's a fraud or not, but there is an easy way to tell. If it comes incorporated into your new Honda, then it's for real. If they try to sell it to you as a DIY kit, it's a fraud. The car industry is competitive enough that it would kill for a 3% increase in MPG, let alone more than 10%.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
I've had a brief look at the paper; thanks for pointing it out.
I'm no expert in this area, but to my layperson's eye some things look rather strange.
For example, the static test of the Mercedes 300D is conducted "At a fixed fuel consumption rate close to 500 g/h". In other words, roughly 0.15 gallons of fuel per hour.
A go-cart uses far more fuel than that per hour.
Then I look at the results of the test: "When the device was turned off, the average power output was 0.3677 hp. It increased to 0.4428 hp after the device was turned on."
Leaving aside the totally spurious level of quoted accuracy (the paper later states the measurements have an accuracy of 5%. If so, quoting to 4 decimal places is silly), those power levels are, again, well below those of a typical go-cart. Heck, I can produce a power output on a bike of around 0.25 hp for half an hour without straining too much, and I'm no Lance Armstrong. The only conclusion is that the engine was idling when the measurements were taken.
The paper then goes on to state "in other words, if the engine on the road is under the same condition as our laboratory test with the dynamometer, the fuel mileage will be increased by 20.4%."
But, clearly, the car will not be being driven anywhere while at idle! Furthermore, while any change in the engine power output when the device is connected is interesting and relevant, I do wonder Mercedes-Benz spent a great deal of time optimizing their engine to produce the maximum possible power under idling conditions. It would have been a hell of a lot more convincing if the effect had been observed under more typical operating conditions. The authors haven't provided any justification for doing their experiments with the engine at idle - indeed, it's only clear on a very close reading of the paper. In my field of study (software engineering) when you have to do an experiment in conditions that in some way don't reflect the real world, you have to not only fess up to that fact, you have to provide a convincing rationale why such a deviation was necessary. That these authors have done neither concerns me greatly.
As others have pointed out, the study of the Mercedes-Benz on the road is essentially useless. Given that it would have been very easy for them to do a double-blind study of the car in much more controlled conditions, I wonder how rigorous the peer review of this paper was. I would have asked the authors to either remove that section, or do the experiment properly.
That's more than enough to make me very suspicious of the parts of the study I lack the expertise to critique properly.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"NO, that means you use 20% less gas a mile, NOT you can buy a car that uses 20% more..."
(chapta: idiotic)
Billy Mazes here for you. How would you like to improve your gas mileage 20%, that's like getting a free take of gas after your fourth fillup! You can get it for 19.99, but, if you act now, we'll send you another one free! That's two fuel savers for only 19.99, you just pay shipping and handling on the 2nd one. And we'll send you a new one each year for LIFE, you just pay shipping and handling. Oh come on...you know that it will be on those obnoxious commercials one of these days.
People hear the phrase "electromagnetic energy" and they act like someone is pointing a cancer ray gun at their head.
Try explaining the inverse square law to someone who has "researched" the dangerous radiation and how it can give you cancer and all that bad stuff. I had an interesting physics lecturer in first year uni. One of his first lectures was "so who sleeps with an electric blanket on?". Then he went on to do a bit of math and it's interesting to note the EM field strength from your nice blanked is comparable (well, in the same ballpark) to that of a nice high tension overhead power line. We won't even get into the field strength from your nice shiny mobile phone and how the cell company doesn't want all its energy going in little johnny's bedroom window and giving him cancer.
But magnetic bracelets protect you from the dangerous EM fields didn't you know that?
I drink to make other people interesting!
If you order now we'll throw in this amazing Ginsu© Knife absolutely free! And, if you are not completely satisfied just return it and keep the Ginsu© Knife as our gift to you!
"I reject your reality and substitue my own." ~ Adam Savage, Mythbuster extraordinaire.
It doesn't make sense to claim that a field placed on the fuel line would thin gas/diesel. The hydrocarbons in oil are not polar molecules so they are not affected by fields. One of the first steps that happen when refining raw crude oil is to pass it through a vessel with a large electric field. The purpose is to filter out some of the contaminates (disolved salts, etc.) from the oil. The contaminates are drawn to one side of the field where they can be diverted out of the flow while the crude oil passes through the vessel.
Would be to just reduce the fucking viscosity at the PUMP. If this is so revolutionary then stations could sell regular/premium and low viscosity at a slight premium. However, this is most likely complete crap and full of fail.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
To reduce fuel consumption (in a petrol powered car) is to have a small 10kW gas turbine providing time average power connected to a small ac induction generator continuoulsy charging a battery pack and capacitors connected to a high voltage dc bus. Then you use a 3 phase inverter using IGBT switching elements in a sensorless vector drive configuration, connected to a 100 year old three phase induction motor (air or water cooled) this would see at least 50% improvement on efficiency, but because its possibe and it would reduce the need for fuel by at least 50 percent, the current politic will not allow it.
What *I* heard about it is that if you put a Time Cube in it, and install it on your water pipes, you'll get instant health!
Towards the Singularity.
...thanks to all the air conditioning, soundproofing, electric windows, airbags, etc. that we stuff into them.
More Weight = less mpg then the empty tin cans we used to drive.
No sig today...
I've read the FA (briefly) and I'm not impressed. The graphs of the difference in size distribution show little difference. The Cornaglia Iveco tests apparently showed an improvement of "5.5%...with an error bar of 2%" which is far less than the 20% they claim and likely to be experimental error. The Mercedes-Benz test "was repeated for 3 h and had an error within 5% ...power output increased to 0.443 hp" which has too many digits, indicating a lack of awareness of accuracy. (Also, why imperial units, and did they mean "continued" rather than "repeated"?). The "continuous road tests" show no data or controls and are worthless, as others have pointed out. The very fact that they are mentioned is suspicious. In the discussion they talk about "our technology, developed on the new physics principle" without explaining what new physics is involved (and it's incorrect grammar). If this was peer reviewed, I would say they did a pretty sloppy job. If it's not peer-reviewed, it's worthless.
Phil McKerracher
Digg is now a small list of stories dugg by the MASSES/plebs all from mainstream sites like cnn and business week and sports illustrated. Almost every story there I've already read on other mainstream sites, it's now just a copy of existing news, and not an interesting copy either. It's rare to see a cool story whose initial source was a blog or a non-mainstream site. And it used to be a near flood of stories, now it's what, 20 stories a day?
Digg is no longer of ANY use to me.
Thus Slashdot is now better than Digg. However slashdot is still low bandwidth as well, and the editors occasionally post moron stories like this.
So where's the next place not populated by the plebs and the morons?
I'm doubtful of this device too, but come on -- MythBusters is not a reliable scientific laboratory. Their pseudoscientific method seems to be:
"We heard that doing A can cause B. We tried doing something like A a couple times and didn't get B. Therefore nothing like A can cause B."
You can prove something is possible by doing it, but you can't prove something is impossible by not doing it. I can't run 100 meters in under 10 seconds, but that doesn't prove that another human with better knowledge and ability can't.
Your post proposes a
( ) mechanical (X) thermal ( ) gravitational (X) electrical (X) voodoo
approach to create infinite/cheap energy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.
( ) You made a math error
(X) You have made a faulty assumption
(X) You don't understand physics
( ) You keep saying "greater than unity"
(X) You're relying on self-reported data
(X) You're relying on an uncontrolled experiment
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Mechanical Friction
(X) Physical constants
( ) Laws of motion
(X) Laws of thermodynamics
( ) Asshats
( ) Gravity
(X) Turbulence
( ) Division by zero yielding undefined result
( ) Unit conversions
( ) Unavailability of infinately strong materials
( ) Unavailability of a perfect vacuum
( ) Solar heating
( ) Stuff that's lighter than air still having mass
( ) Translation losses
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) Smarter people than you have tried to do this before
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I am not a crackpot.
AVgas is leaded. Unless you rip out your catalytic converter, don't do that. It'll end up ripping it out from the inside for you.
SIG: HUP
The wife got one of these for me. Not only is she happier, but my confidence has improved overall.
Funding for the research came from RAND, not exactly an outfit that invests in crap. Nor does the ACS publish obviously unfalsifiable speculations.
Delivering a finer mist to an engine probably would result in increased power. After all, the finer a dust or a mist gets of an inflammable substance, the better it burns--more surface area of the particles. For example, see coal dust, grain silo explosions, or fuel-air bombs.
This research is easily falsifiable. It should be vigorously examined and tested. But don't discard it out of hand because the area has quite a few scams in it. It may work.
ASE certified fuel management tech, and a student of physics at Cal Poly: This is absurd for 1 simple reason. the goal of efficient fuel injection is not to create small water droplets, it is to atomize the fuel. ultimately to create a vapor that is 14.7:1 air/fuel. since fuel has no magnetic particles, it is not influenced by flux or magnetism of any kind. It can however, on an electric injector, change the way the solenoid opens and closes the pintle, making the car run less efficiently. If the key was in the viscosity, then additives in the fuel tank would fix this, or maybe heating the fuel. those of you who know cars will note that cold fuel/air ratios burn better, ruling this idea out. anything that will make a car run more efficiently will involve more than the fuel. it will also involve air, heat, and pressure. magnets aren't going to help here any more than anything in a bottle.
Diesel fuel shouldnt be any different, again, heat makes it thinner, but the goal in combustion is not thinner fuel, its atomized fuel.
Electric field isn't a myth.
It works and is routinely used in research to feed mass-spectrometers with samples from liquid origin (the experiments are called LC-MS : liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectromety, the electric field device is called an ESI : electrospray ionisation).
What makes it a snake oil, is that ESI works on electrically chargeable subtrates, at the point where the liquid is vaporized, i.e.: it is done by the tip of the needle that vaporize and inject some sample, consisting (for exemple) of proton-charged peptides (= positively charged).
It just *CAN'T PHYSICALLY WORK* inside a fuel line were the fuel is both under pressure and liquid (no vaporizing there, it's the injectors which do vaporize) AND where the fuel is neutral (diesel is just fat/oil. No charges thus no electric field could have an effect on it)
Ultrasonication as you propose, is the only process which could have an effect on an electrically neutral fuel. But as said by other /.ers, it should be at done at the injector's level, not inside the fuel line.
Disclaimer : I work in Proteomics (where LC-MS on peptide is a very common analysis method).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Argentine version of this scam is called MDQ55 and FuelShock. Even car/race TV programs advertise them.
Here is an article in Spanish:
http://www.clubdelarazon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
Before claiming these results, this should be tested on more vehicles and the drivers blinded to the presence or absence of the device. The concept is going to be met with incredulity, so the research needs to rely on the strength of its methods and results.
*I am a Temple graduate student and, after being steeped in the research methods this school teaches and employs, consider anything coming out of Temple suspect. You have no idea what goes on in there.
Let's see, an electrical device that increases viscosity....
Is it a heater?
If you look up the way diesel engines are converted to run straight vegetable oil (SVO), one of the first things they do is put a heating element on the fuel line to make the SVO flow more freely. Also notice that the test vehicle was a diesel.
Patentable? Perhaps they've developed a new way to create focused heat via electrical currents, and decided to apply it to fuel lines for profit motives.
Any thoughts on this possibility from the experts?
looking at the PDF of their paper reveals some weird stuff.
After a lot of blabbing they admit the viscosity change is only 10%. Looking at the curves for Diesel fuel viscosity, that's equivalent to heating the fuel another 10 degrees C.
In their "tests" they used an injector pressure of 200PSI. Typical cars use 2,000 PSI and some of the newer Diesels use up to 22,000 PSI! Makes you wonder why they used such a low pressure.
Their real-world test was with a Mercedes Benz diesel engine hooked up to a dynamometer, but apparently running AT IDLE. A fuel consumption of 500 grams per hour. A power output of 1/3 horsepower or so. Does not sound like typical engine operating conditions.
I would be very wary of this device given the bizarre test conditions.
has too many digits, indicating a lack of awareness of accuracy.
It's called "precision", and it's a function of the device you're using to measure. This was covered in just about every science class's first semester lab, assuming you somehow managed to make it out of highschool without learning significant digits and how to use a ruler.
is it gpl?
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
I believe what the poster meant by "diesel-style" was simply a reference to how the fuel was injected directly into the combustion chamber.
He/she didn't say anything about the heat from extreme compression igniting the fuel on injection.
I would think that unless the engine was really carboned up, with lots of glowing hot spots in the chamber, the gas wouldn't burn until the spark plug fired.
And this junk about some electric device clamped over, or inserted into, the fuel line near an injector -- anything that is on/in the fuel line away from where the fuel is actually atomized (not literally) is not going to have an effect unless it can do something to the fuel that will persist long enough for it to get to the injectors.
If it "thins" the fuel and lowers the viscosity, the electrical device might simply be a heater. That would reduce the viscosity and might allow better atomization/vaporization at the injector, and heated fuel really might stay warm long enough to get through the injector.
It might also be a fire hazard if not properly constructed because the fuel would have to be heated significantly. Then there is the issue with vaporizing the fuel prematurely if it gets too hot but depending on how much pressure the fuel is under, might not be a problem.
My bet is at most it is a heater, which might boost efficiency - especially while the engine is cold. My car has an mpg gauge on it and there is a significant difference in economy between when the engine is cold and when it is warm.
A warm engine will warm the fuel somewhat at the injectors, but this device might provide that warmth during the time before an engine reaches operating temperature. I would still be very suspect of this device whatever it is. If it is some kind of electromagnet, it's junk and a scam.
I'm a smidge under 6'5 and I drive 40 minutes to work every day. I've done close to 18000 miles in the last 12 months. No back problems. And I get 45mpg from my Focus C-Max (blegh). Previously, I've owned a Pug 205. Had no back problems with that either. I regularly drive my better half's Ka, and the only problem I have there is down to the seat being too hard.
FWIW here's a citation that google turned up.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=593995&isnumber=12748
"For castor and petroleum oils, viscosity decrease with increasing electric field is observed."
Whether that will actually improve combustion efficiency to a useful degree is another matter.
get two raw eggs and some duct tape.
tape a raw egg to the top of the gas pedal, and one to the top of the brake pedal.
now drive so you don't break the eggs.
guaranteed fuel savings. and this is the ONLY device that will work.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
... if you attached two devices in series, do you get even more fuel efficiency? How about in parallel?
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
All the fuel injectors I have ever seen are fed by metal lines. Creating an electric field through a metal line is going to be a neat trick.
Don't be a jerk. He knows that. In a science paper you are expected to round numbers to the accuracy of the measurement. Leaving the full precision is considered wrong, because it's misleading, pointless and just plain stupid. I learned this in high school, but many people don't learn it until college.
also has a DI option. Basically adds 50HP with no mileage reduction. Its a sweet ride. I got one last year.
After many years of research, we have re-discovered a primitive device that can provide as much as a 23% increase in fuel savings. There is some prior art, but surely after 50 million years the statute of limitations has run out?
http://www.pipeline.com/~bkyaffe/altfuel/image/fnwincar.jpg
It seems fairly promising at this point, as the beta testers keep telling us its a 'Yabba Dabba Do-time' when using it.
Only tyrants and oppressors need fear a well armed populace.
The engineers over at Toyota are probably kicking themselves right now.
The Brits used to be taller than the Americans, this reversed in the early 20th century, then reversed again a couple of years ago -- the study I read put it down to poor diet during the war, then a poor diet in the current USA (ok, poorer). And Dutch guys are taller than either.
More than 30 minutes driving to work is quite long here. I've been driven for an hour to see friends, but I wouldn't do that every weekend. Families will drive a long way for a holiday/vacation, but again -- not every weekend.
And thanks, but we aren't insular. You can drive 100 miles in the USA and not go past another settlement, but in Europe you're likely to pass at least two decent-sized towns. "Remote" here means 20 miles from a city.
(For example, *not including London* the south-east of England has a population density of 419/km^2.)
Tao apparently really is the head of the Temple University physics department. He is the author of "Electrorheological Fluids: Mechanisms, Properties, Technology, and Applications", which is relevant, because electrorheological fluids are ones where the viscosity and shear stress change when an electric field is applied. This effect is sometimes used for specialized clutches; attempts to make robot muscles using it have been tried, which is why I know about it. So he ought to know something about viscosity changes in an electric field.
This is his second attempt to come up with a mainstream application for this marginally useful physical effect. The last one, in 2006, was a scheme for treating crude oil to reduce viscosity for pumping. Tests indicated it required more energy to reduce the viscosity than it saved in pumping.
This effect only works on liquids which carry along particles of a different substance; it won't do anything for a homogeneous pure liquid. So it's unlikely to do anything for gasoline. Diesel, maybe; #2 diesel fuel is a mixture of a broad range of hydrocarbons.
There's a whole industry selling Diesel fuel treatment additives. Unlike gasoline additives, which are mostly bogus, Diesel additives sometimes have some value, because there are various impurities which can appear in Diesel fuel and cause trouble. Also, since many large Diesel fuel users store fuel for long periods, deterioration in storage is a problem, and so there's a real role for additives there.
Because Diesel fuel is so variable, any tests involving it have to be coupled with lab tests to find out what was in the batch of fuel being tested. Was that done here?
We had this in the 70s, during the gas crunch.
Except then we where told they where magnets. And the bs lines where a little different.
Any gains this idiot saw can be explained by differences in driving habits.
If you really want to see just how much it will help, give it to a race car driver, let him try (insert your favorite race here), and see what type of consumption rates he gets.
Or, put it on a semi truck (since they are talking diesel here) and amortize the fuel gains over a year or so period.
What he says is technically correct, and the reason for the high power levels coming out of engines today. Direct injection and super high pressure rails give us that.... And the reasons behind the increased performance is because of exactly what he says, increased atomization.
You can accomplish the same thing by making your injector nozzles smaller and more plentiful. Bosch knows this, so does the aftermarket. You can also get the same thing by increasing your lift pump pressure, rail pressure (all same thing, just different manufacturers call them different things, basically), or other methods.
IOW, someone rediscovered physics and wants to patent it.
--Toll_Free
Disclaimer: I do *not* work at HP, Epson, etc, so the following is mostly from studying the behavior of fouled printers.
Also, not here to pick on one suggestion, just info for all.
I'm pretty sure the cleaning action for printer heads is still mechanical, ie: requires moving parts. It seems the printer makes the cartridges purge lots of ink onto a special pad that the heads then scrub themselves off against. The copious amount of ink involved depletes your reserves rapidly, and I'm pretty sure serves two purposes:
-an attempt to "blow out" any blockages initially, and
-provide sufficient ink solution to provide the suspension solvent as a cleansing (or at least loosening) agent for the scrubbin'.
oh, and...
-Make you buy more ink sooner.
Fuel doesn't have the problem of deliberately suspending lots of solids meant to dry into something durable, so that won't get encrusted on the end. Also, assuming the engine is in a fair state of tune and it's not "direct" injection (into the cylinder), the nozzle is just upstream of the valve, and there's not much chance of burn residue blowing back onto the nozzle. Blockages are more often the results of contamination that can't fit through the fine nozzle, but managed to slip past the more-flexible filter medium.
Diesels are of course a tad different.
Strong detergent additives, for temporary use only (they burn dirty) are the usual solution.
Although... I would be quite amused at a little micro-bot hanging out next to the nozzle like a window cleaner, occasionally shuttin' 'er down and giving the ol' gal a good scrubbin! It would look a bit like WALL*E, or the hover-bot that repaired the THX logo....
If this really works expect the oil industry to either buy the technology rights and hold on to it or simply kill him.
Surely rigorous testing would involve both lab tests (carb/engine outside of vehicle), controlled vehicle tests (rolling road, etc.) and field tests (regular users testing).
Roughly a dev, alpha, beta test scheme. If the thing works miracles in the lab but does nothing to actual vehicle consumption figures on the road then it's still no good. It has to work well in the field, not just in the lab, hence road testing is the final judge of the efficacy of the device.
Isn't the average height in the US declining? And in Europe increasing? To the point where Europeans (and I think, especially, from the Netherlands) are now, on average, taller than Americans. I seem to remember it being linked to nutrition.
iso-Octane is a whole 'nother matter. Absolutely polar. It's shaped like a "y" with a long-ass tail.
Replying to self, since I can't edit.
Evidently iso-octane is even more complex in shape, being properly called 2,2,4-trimethylpentane. Still very polar.
Naming conventions had me confused, being used differently by different groups.
But this is all moot in a way since the snake oil is for fuel oil, diesel, which is a lot like kerosene, and parafin oil, all of which have carbon chains about 12 to 20 long, which are much more polar still as a group.
I can understand that Americans are so brainwashed by "10% off sales" and "1% rebate credit cards" that they think that 20% is a big number. It's not. An 80% increase in fuel efficiency might lead to (guessing here) a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but would by the same token lead to an increase in congestion and travel times. 20% is pretty near irrelevant for what we need to do: break our addiction to fossil fuels.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I have a degree in Automotive and Diesel technology so I think I can speak with some semblence of knowledge on this subject. There are a multitude of reasons they are seeing a boost like this and the most common is driving styles. Many "fuel line enhancements" have been tried in the past and most if not all have been debunked when indepented testing took place. So until I see sever independent testing sources that show simular results this is going in my "yeah, whatever" file.
As a professional creator of scam (3 phds, 4 bachelors and 3 time ignobel prize laureate), I call bullshit.
The fact that I am a professional should boost your opinion of my opinion; but this fact is merely a side note to my remarkably slashdotty ability to refute professional scientific research and experimentation with words alone. (fear my power)
The first assumption made by the article is that smaller particles make for faster combustion. The fact that this happens to be a correct assumption does not lend credibility to the argument.
The second assumption is that something that is non-ferrous and non-polarized can be affected by an electric field. Wait what? You tell me that the experiment says that it is imparting a negative charge to the diesel particles and as a result they repel each other and increase atomization thereby causing the fuel to combust more efficiently?
RFTA
Smokey Yunick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick took a Used Pontiac Fiero and vaporized gas before entering the combustion chamber. This was done by heating the fuel and running it through a blower type of intake that would further break up and mix the fuel with air. the car got around 50 MPG and 0 to 60 in 6 seconds details located here http://community.myride.com/kickapps/_Smokey-Yunick-Fiero-gets-51-mpg-and-does-0-60-in-Six-Seconds/blog/97164/3898.html this just proves another thing, There is nothing new under the sun and unless your Some sort of Professor/teacher/industry backed researcher you and your accomplishments will never get recognized. Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=car+and+fiero&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
The problem is, we have a bunch of people in the USA who really don't care if you save some fuel or not. THese type of devices are all over...some may work, some do not. But the point is, SOMEONE IS BUYING THEM to try and SAVE MONEY...how do you SAVE MONEY by SPENDING MONEY??
We need to CARE more and get Honda to produce MORE of the CNG cars (Civic GX) and get Chevy and Ford and Toyota and Nissan to do the same thing. Natural Gas is more abundant than OIL, it burns clean, it gets "about" the same mpg, and costs less to "refine" and distribute...
With something so GREAT, why aren't we doing more with it? WHy are we content to spend our money on the latest gizmo or gadget, or why are we content to suffer HIGH gas prices (supply and demand my @ss...)but if more of us used CNG, FEWER of us would be using Gasoline, and demand would DECREASE, the price would GO DOWN, and we could use Gasoline at a "fair price" once again...
We are simply a bunch of idiots letting things like this happen...demand better, demand more...don't sit back and accept getting raped in the wallet...
"25% more efficient!
Incontrovertible evidence..."
That you can't do math.
I get a 20% improvement in mileage (kilometerage? :P ) with an occasional tune-up. You may now start sending me money to compensate me for my effort in bringing you this innovative new technique (please ignore the prior art behind the curtain).
I've combined this device with my Fitch fuel catalyst, my HHO generator, my Tornado fuel saver, my Fuel Master Fuel magnet, and my overinflated tires and now my car puts gas back into the tank!
I've had to buy a tank trailer to drive over 100 miles other wise my fuel tank overflows. I've decided I might as well sell all this extra 'nuisance gasoline' instead of pouring it in my storm drain.
So does anyone think I can sell this stuff now that it's worthless?
What do you think is a fair price for nuisance gasoline? I was thinking maybe $5 per 55 gallon drum. Are there enough suckers out there that will pay for this stuff to make it worth the effort?
If this works out, maybe I'll also finish building that null-space-energy generator from the plans I bought online and open my own power company as well.
Now don't get your kickers in a twist! This electromagnetic device that is attached to the fuel line of a diesel engine, if it uses energy will produce heat which in turn will lower the viscosity of the fuel in the line! So to make it more efficient just put on a real heater instead!!!
and watch all the people start telling everyone that they have a car which runs on hydrogen and magnets. clue: I know it states it uses electric fields but saying it runs on mag-ga-nets and hydrogen is just super cool. ;-)
hmmm, wouldn't pre-heating the fuel do the same thing as this guy is suggesting? Wondering if they looked at what kind of heating is going on when they run all that current threw the metal tube.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
> car tuned up on a regular basis.
My Honda Civic, most modern cars, needs tuning at 100,000 miles. Or 10 years, I think, whichever comes first.
I would like to know if Consumer Reports finds fuel additives/injector cleaners such as STP Fuel System Cleaner or injector cleaner to be useful ( http://www.stp.com/fuel_additives.html ). Anyone have access to the online CR and can tell me what they think of STP?
> make sure that the injectors are clean,
> Injectors are clean [but people dirty them by] buying cheap gas, or driving their car too aggressively, and over time gunk builds up on the injector nozzles
You want to keep your combustion chamber, valve ports, valves, etc. as free of carbon or other deposits as you can. You should buy quality gasoline! But how?
*** What you want is gasoline that is Top Tier Gas certified ***:
http://www.toptiergas.com/
[quote]
TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline is the premier standard for gasoline performance. Six of the world's top automakers, BMW, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and Audi recognize that the current EPA minimum detergent requirements do not go far enough to ensure optimal engine performance.
Since the minimum additive performance standards were first established by EPA in 1995, most gasoline marketers have actually reduced the concentration level of detergent additive in their gasoline by up to 50%. As a result, the ability of a vehicle to maintain stringent Tier 2 emission standards have been hampered, leading to engine deposits which can have a big impact on in-use emissions and driver satisfaction.
[end quote]
I found it by reading my Honda manual and seeing it's recommendation.
It seems silly to me that car makers don't install a mpg meter on every new car sold.
I can easily imagine this would immediately cause drivers to drive more efficiently
because THEY WOULD SEE HOW MUCH GAS THEY ARE BURNING!!
Most people don't realize that when they accelerate from a standstill to 60mph,
they are wasting way more gas then if they slowly accelerated.
Hell, there could even be competitions to see how efficiently/speed people are...
(oh wait there already are such competitions...)
Maybe installing mpg meters should be mandated by the federal government as a cheap easy measure
until alternative fuel cars become viable
cheers
Ben
My '88 Camry got mileage that was as good as - or better than - my 05 Corolla. And the Corolla still beat the pants off of most domestic vehicles that I compared against in general driving: heavy hills it didn't like very much , and noticeably lost fuel efficiency (it did better on premium though). In a lot of cases, actually, when I measure how much gas it took me to get between certain areas, I think the '88 is still the winner
So can anyone explain to me why - over a decade later (the car was an '88 but I had it around '97) - and despite "aerodynamic" body changes etc, cars seem to be only as efficient or even less? Yes, we have hybrids, etc, but what about your regular gas vehicles? I know it's not my driving habits, because I'm a fairly sedate driver these days compared to my teenage years of burning out at green lights, etc.
One thing I think may very well be to blame is the quality of gas. Not only are the prices higher, but I honestly believe the quality is lower. I've noticed that it seems to take a lot less time for my fuel-filter to get gummed up, and I haven't changed anything in regards to the octane level of my gas or additives, etc.
Maybe we shouldn't just be worried about the price of gas, but how about the quality, not to mention that a recent study showed a disturbing amount of pumps that were gypping the customers on how much gas they were actually outputting...
Replying to my own post... but there is something I was wondering.
Does anyone around here know a good way to test the quality of one's gas? How about the output of the pumps.
I know that some stations "are" tested for accuracy, although recent headlines indicate it hasn't been nearly often enough. Is there a consumer device (other than a jerry-can with a level indicator) with which one could check that what the pump says is giving you is accurate to what you're actually getting, and then further ways to test the actual quality of said fuel?
IF this "diesel" is modern. Then it is most likely has an HPCR style setup. Pressures AT THE INJECTOR under WOT situations can approach 30,000psi. The fuel is exiting the injector faster then the speed of sound.. And they do this, depending on the fuel system, 3-5 times per power stroke!
It's already atomized.
Now in a gas car, different story. Fuel is no where near as atomized as diesel is at injection time..
The device, attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector, creates an electric field that thins fuel, reducing its viscosity so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion.
Nothing to do with vaporizing the fuel before it hits the injectors.
Infuriate left and right
I expect this kind of thing on Digg, but not here.
How did this story make it on Slashdot?
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
Haven't heard back from you for a while...
Jobs? Which jobs?
...the electric field device is called an ESI : electrospray ionisation).
What makes it a snake oil, is that ESI works on electrically chargeable subtrates...
Actually, they're claiming a totally different effect: electrorheology, as in electrorheological fluids.
From that Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):
"Electrorheological (ER) fluids are suspensions of extremely fine non-conducting particles (up to 50 micrometres diameter) in an electrically insulating fluid. The apparent viscosity of these fluids changes reversibly by an order of up to 100,000 in response to an electric field. For example, a typical ER fluid can go from the consistency of a liquid to that of a gel, and back, with response times on the order of milliseconds. "
Note that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention this fuel thing at all (it mentions valves and bulletproof vests and such), so I doubt the article was made or edited to provide legitimacy to this. The thing I'm not sure about is: is gasoline really an electrorheological fluid?
When I see a race car driver using it. Seriously, those guys care about fuel because it earns them money. If it works, they'd do it. If it doesn't, they'd know.
While we are at it, the designer of your printer can design nozzles that will move out of the motor to clean themselves. And get rid of combustion, which is the cause of the grit.
Diesel & gas are solvents. They clean stuff by their very nature (ymmv, some restrictions apply). The combustion is the problem and you can't really get rid of that part.
And that thing is so cool. Currently there is not enough biofuels to adequately supply reasonable percentage of required fuel. But if you could get that kind of mileage ... the ratio would change.
And yes, as a bio from wvo user in my TDIs I do put money where mouth is.
More than likely, his subconcious need for the device to work led to a more conservative driving style - resulting in the increase. Things you may do to the fuel far back in the fuel line will be completely negated once it gets spurted through the injectors. http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Improve_MPG_The_Factors_Affecting_Fuel_Efficiency
When you understand your disbelief in other gods, then you will understand my disbelief in yours.
I'm a bit surprised that as a technical guy your only criticisms appear to be nitpicks. What Temple's PR dept. writes and what Tao actually published are two different things. You say that the graphs show little difference; I see a graph that shows an approximately 10% increase in very small droplet size for diesel fuel.
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/enfuem/asap/figures/ef-2008-004898_0006.html
I don't know the editorial policy of the journal. but it appears to be a standard professional journal. Certainly independent confirmation of Tao's results are warranted at this point, but his results appear to be valid and easily reproducible.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Even if the engine was pretty fouled, the computer wouldn't allow for conditions where you'd get gasoline autoignition. It's called 'knock' and it's really detrimental to the health of an engine. Instead of a slower, more controlled explosion (low explosive, like black powder), you'd have a sharper spike in pressure (think high explosive, like C4 or TNT) and a shock/mach wave thing that I can't seem to fully wrap around my head yet. I don't know about being a heater, or even needing one. I'd think the increase in pressure of the secondary pump would cause fuel temperatures to rise from the pumping action. And even if it's a heater, there's no more fire hazard with a diesel than what's currently on the road.
As far as your car getting better mileage when it's warm, it's because the computer has to wait for the right engine conditions to be satisfied before it can start playing with how much fuel it's putting into the cylinders. Until then, it's running on an 'open loop' fuel map which, while not perfect, will allow your engine to run without breaking itself for long enough for it to take over. That's why your car doesn't just shut off when your MAP/MAF sensor or 02 sensor dies - it reverts back to a general safe program.
the EM field strength from your nice blanked is comparable (well, in the same ballpark) to that of a nice high tension overhead power line
Which is why it gives you cancer.
Your car gets better mileage when it's warm because the computer adjusts the fuel mixture and engine timing to optimum when the engine hits operating temperature. Before that, it's programmed to help heat the engine quickly and keep emissions down until that catalytic converters are hot.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Read the f'ing paper.
They're using quite a high electric field (note: very low current draw, but about 10kV through the fuel, which is okay - it's not conductive, it being under pressure, it doesn't go through dielectric breakdown. IE, no spark, no oxidiser anyway, no burning.) Also note that both polarities are attached to the fuel, which is insulated from the fuel line.
They are not claiming to reduce the "surface tension". What they are claiming is that the first approximation of droplet size - that it depends on the surface tension and the pressure drop as the fuel comes out of the nozzle - is actually more a limit rather than what happens in practise. As in practise more viscous liquids atomize into bigger droplets.
They are claiming that exposure to such a strong electric field effectively causes a slight reduction in the overall viscosity of the fluid, and it's an effect which lasts for a few seconds after exposure - long enough to be helpful in reducing atomization size, so long as it's done just prior to injection.
Overall, what they've done is trade an electrical device dissipating no more than about 0.1 W in power, since the current is so low, (although I'm sure that doesn't include the losses in the high tension power supply, probably still no more than a Watt or so) for about 5% improvement in overall engine efficiency.
Worthwhile? Yes.
Every percentile increase in efficiency is helpful - it means not only less fuel used while idling, but less fuel wasted while accelerating.
A major power limit for a diesel engine is just how much fuel you can inject without most of it not burning properly - the "black smoke" limit.
You generally hit this limit even before you hit stoichiometry - there should be enough air to burn all the fuel, but the large droplet size allows burnt fuel to cover un-burnt and "hide" it from the oxygen it needs to burn - you get little chunks of charcoal instead - hence the black smoke.
So smaller droplet size is definitely a good thing - more so for diesel engines than gasoline.
Previous snake oil devices probably don't use anywhere near such high electric fields, and probably didn't involve actual measurement of atomization size with and without the device running.
You need a laboratory set up with a high speed camera to do that. A uni lab could do it, but I sincerely doubt most car mechanics even know where to get a high speed camera suitable for the job. Or even what such a camera looks like. (we're talking 2000 frames per second, here)
If you test such a device and just see the smaller droplet size, you already know it works.
(which they did - go read their paper)
The next step is to attach it to an existing engine on a dyno, and measure how much difference it actually makes in a controlled environment. Which they also did.
They found more of an improvement on a newer engine. (perhaps not surprisingly)
Also not surprisingly, they found *less* improvement then their droplet size lab experiment would suggest - a general indication of no miracles occurring. (ie, murphy's laws still in effect).
Labelling this a scam without even looking into it is deplorable. No, I'm sorry - it's down right idiotic.
This is a genuine advance that will likely soon find its way into very large diesel engines, where a lot of hydrocarbons are burnt, and where even 1% efficiency improvement is well worth the effort.
Good on 'em.
That said, I doubt you'll see this on a gas running car any time soon, and likely for the same reason you don't see high pressure heated fuel direct injection systems*. Safety.
Gasoline is much, much easier to ignite than diesel.
* Where the fuel is heated, then fed under very high pressure directly into the cylinder at TDC whilst the cylinder is at full compression full of hot air, possibly at higher compression than the static ratio due to an attached turbo charger.
Under these conditions, can you imagine a flammable liquid fuel that *wouldn't* burn? Little surprise then that diesel cars will run on cooking oil.
I understand many of those words individually, so I'm pretty sure its english. But that may have been the most incomprehensible thing I've read in a while. I'll check back in a few hours after a thorough wikipedia expedition to be sure.
-=Bang Bang=-
That't isn't from their marketing campaign, I checked.
Second, what kind of fucking loser are you that as soon as you get called out for your shitty math you check my posting page?
Because you were going to make some retarded comment about my posting history or karma in a sad attempt to draw attention from your shitty math, right?
Right.
Third, I'd just post AC if I were a "coward", that attempt at an attack is dumber than your math attempt.
God, you're a sensitive little bitch. You really need to stop being such a fucking cretin if you're going to get all twisyed up like that.
You were wrong and a cunt.
And no douche, looking at a poster's history is yet another form of ad hominem, and it's highly likely that if someone brings it up, they're too fucking stupid to listen to.
Like you for instance.
Now fuck off loser.
No, you don't.
You just know you were totally wrong and when told so, you attacked me.
You look like, an idiot as a result, but you're not possessed with the self respect or maturity to admit you were wrong and attacked me, so you say stupid shit like.
"I love you, too"
But you don't.
You're just trying to find some way to avoid admitting you were wrong and acted like a dick.
Which is really sad.