Simple device which uses electrical field could boost gas efficiency
September 25, 2008With the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuel impacting costs for automobiles, trucks, buses and the overall economy, a Temple University physics professor has developed a simple device which could dramatically improve fuel efficiency as much as 20 percent.
According to Rongjia Tao, Chair of Temple's Physics Department, the small device consists of an electrically charged tube that can be attached to the fuel line of a car's engine near the fuel injector. With the use of a power supply from the vehicle's battery, the device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. That leads to more efficient and cleaner combustion than a standard fuel injector, he says.
Six months of road testing in a diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz automobile showed that the device increased highway fuel from 32 miles per gallon to 38 mpg, a 20 percent boost, and a 12-15 percent gain in city driving.
The results of the laboratory and road tests verifying that this simple device can boost gas mileage was published in Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly journal published by the American Chemical Society.
"We expect the device will have wide applications on all types of internal combustion engines, present ones and future ones," Tao wrote in the published study, "Electrorheology Leads to Efficient Combustion."
Further improvements in the device could lead to even better mileage, he suggests, and cited engines powered by gasoline, biodiesel, and kerosene as having potential use of the device.
Temple has applied for a patent on this technology, which has been licensed to California-based Save The World Air, Inc., an environmentally conscientious enterprise focused on the design, development, and commercialization of revolutionary technologies targeted at reducing emissions from internal combustion engines.
According to Joe Dell, Vice President of Marketing for STWA, the company is currently working with a trucking company near Reading, Pa., to test the device on diesel-powered trucks, where he estimates it could increase fuel efficiency as much as 6-12 percent.
Dell predicts this type of increased fuel efficiency could save tens of billions of dollars in the trucking industry and have a major impact on the economy through the lowering of costs to deliver goods and services.
"Temple University is very excited about the translation of this new important technology from the research laboratory to the marketplace," said Larry F. Lemanski, Senior Vice President for Research and Strategic Initiatives at Temple. "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."
Source: Temple University
13 minutes ago
http://pubs.acs.o...898.html
The paper states that the device is based on the "new physics principle that proper application of electrorheology can reduce the viscosity of petroleum fuels."
I am not an electrical engineer nor a scientist but, a simple analysis of the the electrical topology of electrolysis, would provide further data into this investigation. It would be of interest to look at the current distribution through the fuel when passing between the meshes. If the power applied to the meshes was raised several orders of magnitude, I would hypothesize the viscosity of the fuel to be even lower.
Please, someone correct me if I am wrong.
"current gasoline vehicles can only sustain a fuel pressure less than 3 bar"
When testing:
"For diesel fuel, the fuel pressure was 13.79 bar (200 lb./in.2)"
"with gasoline (with 20% ethanol), the fuel pressure was 7.59 bar (100 lb./in.2)"
If more efficient combustion is achieved through more efficient atomization of fuel then I wonder how much of the improvement comes from reduced viscosity and how much comes from increased pressure. I would like to see the results at less than 3 bar.
If the product does what they claim (reduce the viscosity of the fuel) then the vehicle would actually use MORE fuel.
Higher viscosity means a greater resistance to flow. If this thing lowers viscosity, then the fuel would flow easier, meaning that the fuel injectors would now allow more fuel to flow into the combustion chamber, and fuel economy would go down, not up.
Totally untrue... My car is direct injected and the fuel pressure goes well above 10 bar.
so my guess is that the decreased viscosity and higher pressure increases flow rate through the injectors. This is offset somewhat by the fact that the fuel is now less dense, and contains less energy per volume.
All in all I still would bet that this thing actually reduces fuel economy.
The only way it would be able to use the fuel more efficiently is if the higher pressure and temperature and lower viscosity allow the injector to better atomize the fuel.
I'll concede that it seems reasonable that this could be the case, however, if it were really this easy then car makers would have been doing this for years.
As I said before, if more fuel flowed into the combustion chamber and was also burned more efficiently, the user or test setup would then reduce the flow to get the amount of power required.
Also, the actual paper says they were consumming less than 1/10 watt, this won't warm the fuel.
Today market is flooded with offerings of different "unique" & "new" technologies to boost fuel efficiency from 10% to 20%. All of them are pure hoax targeted at naive customers who want a quick fix for $100.
Hint: Ease into and out of speeds. Don't jump the gas peddle each time. Emergencies exempt here of course.
I'm also somewhat skeptical but this is published in a peer reviewed journal by scientists so it's almost certain its not a pure hoax, at worst they only reported the best results and real world improvement might be significantly lower.
The authors claim the applied electric field makes larger molecules of fuel clump together which leaves the smaller ones in between, this temporarily lowers the viscosity. Lower viscosity leads to lower droplets.
The described mechanism makes sense, although I can't see how it can give 20% fuel efficiency improvement. The first test they report which was done by an outside company reported 5% improvements which sounds more realistic.
Authors claim they then changed their setup and run another test, but this time on their own engine and got a number of 20.4% (error within 5%), this test however was done on an engine which only produced 0.3677 hp, so its far from a typical operation range and engines are less efficient in such conditions.
Then they made some road tests but those are often troubled by other problems, weather, driving habits, engine condition all can have significant impact on results. For example it could be that fouled injectors benefit much more then clean ones. There is no specific information on how they performed the road test.
A conclusive test would involve two identical brand new diesel engines working side by side under identical load conditions typical of everyday driving.
We will see, if it is real it will be adopted in diesels in a few years. (the benefit for gasoline engines is much lower)
My husband has been tinkering with a hydrogen system that gives 15-20% increase for gasoline engines plus an increase in apparent horsepower, significantly cooler burn, and less exhaust; on diesels it is yielding nearly 30% better mileage. That reaction appears to be catalytic; the hydrogen itself does not burn, rather it modifies the way the gas burns in the cylinder. There is also a difference between these hydrogen systems: those that produce monatomic hydrogen (H) are much more effective than those that produce H2.
With any of these systems, I would suggest that you closely monitor your engine until you know how it will react: the most common issue will be carbon deposits from running too rich. If you let that go too long, you will have an expensive mess on your hands. ;o)
Sorry Keter but this does not make much sense.
Hydrogen has to burn in the engine if there is oxygen present. It will react with oxygen and produce water. It might not burn completely if theres not enough oxygen but it certainly will burn.
Production of monoatomic hydrogen is only possible in extreme conditions and requires alot of energy, H will also react with itself and produce H2 as soon as it has the chance.
This seems to be a bit amateurish to say the least, to run some old IVECO truck and as i understan an old Mercedes model.
to base sth
Ka-boom!!
http://en.wikiped...i/Steorn
P.S. The ultrasonic vaporizers worked very well. I helped a friend build one in the '80's. The problem is they were somewhat above the average mechanic's abilities to make, and they tended to explode.
http://www.google...q=plasma spark circuit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://yeswaterisfuel.com
I have a diesel and for some reason the fuel is heated as a matter of course - it seems that it is heated by being pumped through a fuel pump at a rate far in excess of what is required for fuel consumption.
Maybe it does have a lower fuel consumption than if it was not heated but since it is already done I would have to wonder if installing something which would tend to reduce the flow of fuel would have a positive effect.