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."

21 of 674 comments (clear)

  1. Fuel Efficiency of Honda by William+Robinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Two years ago it was magnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  3. I've got one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  4. Re:This is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Slashdot: Fake News for Idiots, selected by Moronic so-called-Editors"

    FFS. This is (a) clearly bollocks (b) these "devices you attach to the fuel line" have been around being sold by con-artists for at least TEN YEARS. Actually, it must be longer as I remember them from when I was AT SCHOOL!

    I'm afraid that whoever put THIS rubbish up is clearly an Epsilon Minus semi-moron.

    *sigh*

  5. Re:This is... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Funny

    these "devices you attach to the fuel line" have been around being sold by con-artists for at least TEN YEARS

    TFA says he's getting a patent. The US patent office wouldn't be so clueless as to issue a patent if there were prior art, now would it? ;o)

    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  6. Re:Next stop, infomercial and/or MLM by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Informative

    >With pressure to meet CAFE standards, don't you think Detroit would have deployed such tech years ago if it really worked?

    You know, in the late 80s and early 90s you could buy a cheap non-hybrid car that got 40+ MPG easily. And today a hybrid Camry gets, what, 33 MPG?

    It's not a coincidence. CAFE standards haven't been raised from 27.5MPG since 1990. (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm)

    It wasn't till late last year that congress and the president passed a new law raising fleet efficiency goals to 35MPG by 2020.

    So you're right, but just in the opposite direction. Now that Detroit has pressure on it to raise efficiency standards again, I expect to start seeing devices like this come out.

  7. Re:Typical slashdot vaporware by wfberg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Long term option? Not at all. The oil in Alaska and offshore doesn't last forever. It is a mid term solution at best.

    Snakes on the other hand can simply be bred, making snakeoil a renewable and CO2 neutral resource.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  8. Re:Blind testing needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or they could oh I don't know, attach the wheel of the car to some kind of sensitive machine which would measure the power output of the engine under controlled and reproducible load, I think I will call this device a dynamometer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

    RTFA before you call something snake oil, the tests were done with laboratory measurements not with human drivers.

  9. Knee-jerk /. by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Next stop, infomercial and/or MLM by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even as recently as 2002 you could buy a 44mpg highway Civic. No, not a hybrid - it was the "HX" model with lean-burn engine.

    The carmakers are deliberately pushing hybrids because they are "sexy", but really any sufficiently small engine will get great economy. VW sold a gasoline Lupo that got 60mpg in Europe, a diesel version that got almost 90mpg, and soon will be releasing a 2-seater that gets 250 mpg (all highway numbers).

    --
    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  11. Re:This is... by banzaikai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Agreed! As a former mechanic, I can immediately call "Bullshit!"©.

    At the station, we had a box in the back full of magnets, coil ballasts, additives, mothballs, and some strange gizmo even I couldn't figure out what they were trying to do. All crap. They were either pulled from customers' cars (to make them work again) or given to us to put on cars by sales drones.

    Now, we have this thing. I'm no physicist, at least one with a college degree, but I see one really big problem with this method. A bottleneck. Specifically, an injector. This is the exact same problem that is inherent in the design of the "Tornado"®. Sure, it'll spin the air into a neato vortex, but that vortex goes to hell (in a handbasket) once it tries to maneuver through the intake manifold, and you're right back to laminar flow. Well, it looked good on paper (and TV).

    So, let's look at the fuel situation, shall we? Let's shall!

    Fuel gets pumped up to the fuel rail(s), and into the injector(s), where it gets sprayed into the combustion chamber(s). {Note: The plurals take into account whether you've got TBI or MPFI.} You apparently attach this thing BEFORE it gets to the injector. Let that sink in for a moment - BEFORE the injector. Sure, the molecules are having their neutron polarity reversed (or whatever the hell they're claiming), but those molecules are now going to get crammed back together in the small amount of time it's waiting for the computer to tell the injector to fire. An eight cylinder engine has a longer time between firings than a four-banger, but compensating for amount of fuel capacity between the device and the injector, speed of engine, and amount of fuel being metered, this may be as long a a second or two. Remember the LA riots? The police would break up the crowd, only to have them reorganize somewhere else. Exact same effect. You're doing your thing before the injector, but after the processed fuel gets another block down the street, it's back to being an angry mob. And heaven help you if the car is Korean.

    Now, if this device were to be incorporated into the injector's NOZZLE, they may have something. Or, maybe, just have the refineries put a big one on the output valve of their pipeline so we won't need to put small ones on each injector in every car on the planet.

    banzai

    Bullshit!© is a copyrighted title of Showtime! Networks.
    Tornado® just sucks balls.

  12. Easy way to massively improve fuel consumption by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  13. Re:Taken for a ride by doghouse41 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the biggest reason for higher fuel efficiency in Europe is that fuel there has been more highly taxed for many years.

    What do you pay in the US for petrol today - $4 a gallon? That translates into about GBP0.58p per litre at current exchange rates. The UK hasn't seen petrol prices that low for ten years. Current prices are nearer GBP1.11(petrol) - GBP1.25 (diesel) per litre. In US terms that is petrol at £7.50 a US gallon.

    If you paid that much or fuel, you would care a lot more about fuel efficiency.

    Ultimately Europeans are no greener than Americans - we are just being given more encouragement to be green by Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

  14. Re:Blind testing needed by WSQuant · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The proper blind testing of course would be to install it in say ten cars"

    Well, I really don't think we should let blind people drive. Anyway, I am pretty sure it is illegal in every state, except New Jersey.

  15. Re:This is... by Graff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, we have this thing. I'm no physicist, at least one with a college degree, but I see one really big problem with this method. A bottleneck. Specifically, an injector. This is the exact same problem that is inherent in the design of the "Tornado"®. Sure, it'll spin the air into a neato vortex, but that vortex goes to hell (in a handbasket) once it tries to maneuver through the intake manifold, and you're right back to laminar flow. Well, it looked good on paper (and TV).

    Well I'm a chemist and I have the degree to prove it. You are right and you are wrong. Just because the fluid moves past the point of disturbance doesn't mean that it automatically and immediately becomes laminar. There will be a period of time before the flow settles back down. The question becomes, is this "settling" time long enough for the fluid to make it past the injector and affect the droplet size? Well that's the million-dollar question and you can't say for sure until it is tested through experimentation.

    In this case it IS possible to form polar molecules and ions through the use of magnetism and electric fields. It will also take a period of time before these changes will be reversed. The questions are will these changes affect droplet size and can the magnitude of these changes be great enough by the time the fluid makes it past the injector. Those, again, are the million-dollar questions. The only thing which will answer these questions is thorough testing. Unless you have personally done scientifically valid testing on these claims you can't say for sure one way or the other whether this device will work.

    Yes, in the past there have been a lot of "snake oil" devices but that doesn't mean that every device is a scam. The possibility exists that some might actually make a difference. We just have to rely on validatable testing so we can decide what is a scam and what will work.

  16. Re:This is... by couchslug · · Score: 5, Informative

    "A finer mist *does* improve fuel economy."

    Automakers could easily run a high-pressure second stage fuel pump/lines/injectors for finer atomization.

    Designers are working on direct injection gasoline engines to blast the fuel into the combustion chamber, "diesel style", for even better combustion control than the common injector location upstream of the intake valve.

    These retrofit with a cylinder head redesign, and are proven on ultralight aircraft engines among others:

    http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/directinjection/dioverview.htm

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  17. Re:This is... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Funny

    People keep buying cheap gas

    Really? Where?!

  18. Re:This is... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Engineers could design the best nozzle that's possible within the realm of physics, getting perfect misting, and if the owner doesn't take care of it then that gunk is still going to build up, and economy is still going to suffer over time.

    When my printer manufacturer manages to provide automatic nozzle cleaning, I would think that car manufacturers would be able to do the same.

  19. With thanks and apologies to Cory Doctorow . . . by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  20. Electric field isn't a myth by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ]
  21. Re:Blind testing needed by Phat_Tony · · Score: 5, Informative
    Right. That's why that's what they did.

    For god's sake, I know this is Slashdot, and it's the cliche that nobody RTFA's. But I can't believe this prolonged discussion about how testing his device in a Mercedes was improper because he probably just changed his driving habits, and how they should install these in dozens of cars with placebos in a randomized, blind, controlled study, and then finally to your brilliant deduction here that they should just hire an independent lab to run it on a bench test as a properly controlled lab experiment. BECAUSE THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. Way to go, slashdot writers, your prolonged discussion on how they did everything wrong, and subsequently figuring what it is that they should have done, has finally arrived at the right answer for what they really should have done- the sort of testing they ACTUALLY DID PERFORM. From TFA:

    The first engine test was conducted by Cornaglia Iveco, a diesel engine manufacturer in Italy (Figure 6a). The tests measured the fuel consumption rate and the power output at a constant rpm.

    Constant RPM = lab work, not car driving. Read their testing methodology- a diesel engine on a lab bench hooked up to a dynamometer, measuring power vs. fuel consumption on the same motor with and without the device, performed by an independent testing lab.

    On the Mercedes, they started with the car parked on a dynamometer in the lab and did lab testing, then they did six months of road testing to make sure their lab results were applicable in a real-world environment.

    There are lots of highly-moderated posts above about how kooks and con-artists have been selling scam fuel-economy improvement devices for years, and how stupid the Slashdot editors are to have approved this story. Their argument boils down to saying that, because anyone has ever done anything invalid in the realm of engine efficiency, therefore any conceivable improvements in engine efficiency add-ons that anyone comes up with are invalid. This is a physics professor at a real university who published a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respectable scientific journal, including results from an independent lab, and complete with specifications and testing methodology, because he expects other labs to duplicate and confirm his research. It's called snake-oil above, but that's the snake-oil he's selling that's being promoted by this? He's not selling anything yet, he's performing research and testing. He applied for a patent because he hopes to profit eventually. Once it's fully confirmed and proven.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?