fuel gizmo..

[T.F.S.]

hi

i have read new scientist magazine on and off for a few years lets say....not the place i would expect to find bullshit fuel gizmo infomation but the below quote is from last weeks issue

"A $200 device that fits inside vehicle fuel-injection systems can increase the efficiency of an engine by up to 19 per cent. The device, developed by researchers at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, generates a small electric field that reduces the viscosity of gasoline or diesel fuel in the vehicle's fuel line. This creates smaller droplets which burn more completely and cleanly when injected into the engine."

thoughts?

[GT-R Glenn]

I'll believe theres a god when I meet him ....

[Fuggles]

Sinmple really. If it worked either every car would have it and all manufacturers would then claim much better performance; or one manufacturer would buy it and protect it so that no-one else can use it. Plus, don't recall seeing it on many F1 cars where anything that gives you the edge is always going to be used.

[NotoriousREV]

Well the guy that invented it only announced it in September, so that may be why no one's using it.

The theory behind it is sound: it uses electrorheology to reduce the viscosity of the fuel this making it easier to burn. The claims of efficiency they make all seem to relate to diesel (which burns very inefficiently even in modern diesels) so it may not have such a great effect in a petrol motor (petrol is obviously not as viscous as diesel).

We all know that better vapourisation leads to better combustion so it *could* work. I doubt it's efficacy is as good as they claim, though.

[ATCO]

There have been a number of "devices" around for some time, not just September, that apply (electro)magnetic charge to fuel. Generally these have involved clamping some form of device (magnetic/electromagnetic) around a fuel line, rail or whatever.

The principles are associated with the laws of physics, however the practicality can be the downfall.

Of course any improvements in fuel atomisation/vapourisation can be beneficial, however consider the realities here.

To achieve significant gains would require an appreciable improvement, one that ideally the engine design can capitalise upon.

So, what level of energy input is required to get the desired effect, and where?

The statement does not say where in the fuel system. The further from the key event (big bang) potentially the less benefit due to loss of vapourisation - my Chem-Eng isn't hot on this one, however I suspect that the vaporisation level will diminish over time, so it needs to be as close to cylinder as possible. Then throw in the effects of the fuel injector operation itself. So that is the 'where'.

Then there is energy level. This is a magneto effect. So just how much energy transfer is required to obtain the necessary effect. I suspect considerable, on an ongoing basis at something passing at speed at several bars pressure! So firstly the question is, does the technology exist to deliver that level of energy transfer? And secondly where is the power coming from? Could be a big battery drain, which needs to be recovered from the engine. So it is possible that the nett gain is actually negative! Some of the early devices where simple magnets, thereby 'bypassing' the energy in problem by principle of passing fuel through a permanent magnetic field, however even rare earth magnets are unlikely to have much effect.

So in conclusion, without verifiable, validated empirical data to support the principle, it may be prudent to consider this addressing the 'snake oil' market niche.

If you really are that bothered, consider the atomisation/vapourisation benefits of using as small an injector nozzle as possible. That gets droplet size down, improves fuel burn/flame front and so on. Of course, you need to get the necessary amount of fuel in, in the time available, but that is possible by cranking up the fuel pressure to compensate. However, who is keen to have 10Bar+ fuel pressure lines running around the car?

[NotoriousREV]

it doesn't say in the statement but if you do a bit of research then you'll find that the device is just prior to the injector (not sure if they mean in the fuel rail or pre-rail but "just prior" would suggest in the rail to me)

[vennuth]

Why settle for a 20% increase when you can have a 213% one?

Run Auto with Water -

[pupsi]

Originally Posted by vennuth

Why settle for a 20% increase when you can have a 213% one?

Run Auto with Water -

So has anyone tried this?? apart from the testimonials, does anyone know anyone who has??

[miragev]

Originally Posted by vennuth

Why settle for a 20% increase when you can have a 213% one?

Run Auto with Water -

got my order in while the books are on special ...can't wait for them arrive ..

[kismetcapitan]

Originally Posted by pupsi

So has anyone tried this?? apart from the testimonials, does anyone know anyone who has??

it's called "water injection"??

An actual fuel/water hybrid engine is being worked on, the Crower six-stroke (the guy who akes the hot rod parts). There are certain advantages and disadvantages, but it looks interesting.
Actually, I really hope it can be worked out. If it could be retrofitted, it would mean that the entire coolant system of the RB26 could be tossed and we could fill the blocks with concrete, and the force of steam could drive the turbos faster. But it's a long way until the thing is sorted, and it may not ever be practical in a car because the engine never really warms up. Plus, you've got to carry an 11 gallon water tank in addition to an 11 gallon fuel tank.

[T.F.S.]

Electricity gets More Distance for your Diesel - The Naked Scientists

thought the link might be of interest

[kismetcapitan]

I'm really interested in new innovations and seeing how they might be applied to the RB26. The iron block and bottom end stays, of course, but technology advances and custom things could be done with the head. Direct injection would be cool, for instance. Or converting to the Crower six-stroke. The HKS V-Cam is already one, albeit expensive, example of how we can keep our engines somewhat up to date.

[kingsley]

Originally Posted by vennuth

Why settle for a 20% increase when you can have a 213% one?

Run Auto with Water -

Well that would be nice if it worked but I don't believe it for a moment. What they appear to be claiming is that they've invented perpetual motion and that simply cannot be.

Basic physics tells us that energy in + stuff in = energy out + stuff out.

You can use electrolysis to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen but this would take /at least/ as much energy to do as you'd then get back by burning the hydrogen.

So, however much extra engine power you get from burning the extracted hydrogen would have had to have been provided as electrical power to produce the hydrogen in the first place and that comes from the battery which gets charged by the alternator which gets driven from the engine so you've just gone round in a circle gaining nothing.

[Captain drift]

physics tells us energy is never lost just converted to less useful forms of energy.
If we can use these less useful forms of energy.
I.e Heat, sound