Evidence that inexpensive device boosts fuel economy by up to 20 percent

Wow, something the Russians won't like !

4 mpg on a diesel isn't a huge breakthrough, but it's a breakthrough none the less.

My question would be did they test this with a propane injector unit already installed on the vehicle, as a propane injection unit goes from an 80% efficient diesel engine to a 98% efficient diesel engine, and they've been in common usage in the heavy trucking industry for a long time.

OK Looks like it will take minimal R&D money from other important projects.

Dame it!!!
Sincerely,
Mobil, BP, Chevron, Etc.

ok what is the difference between this news article and this news article?

http://www.physor...725.html

enquiring m inds would like to know.

Jeff: Nadda.

I'm suprised that they don't mention hexane cracking anywhere.

Look at the source of each of these articles ... one is published by the American Chemical Society and the other by the university of the researchers. Physorg doesn't write hardly any of their own articles.

Dame it!!!
Sincerely,
Mobil, BP, Chevron, Etc.

Fuel saving devices that increase the utillity of oil products is exactly what oil companies want; that makes oil harder to replace and allows people to spend just as much money for less oil.

Further, the "big oil" companies you listed are now bit players of little significance to anyone.

I can see how better atomization in a Diesel is a big breakthrough, but isn't it less of an issue with Gasoline since the fuels is already volitile and atomizes rather easily.
Velanarris, It wouldn't do anything for an LPG or natural gas vehicle since those use a gaseous fuel and don't require vaporization of the fuel.

I am very skeptic about these claims, as every device claiming similar gains failed to deliver.

If there would be a 20% gain in fuel efficiency, expect it to be mandatory in the near future, this would be the easiest way to reduce CO2 so far, Its just too easy imo.

I hope its real, but hope alone wont change fuel consumption.

Looks extemely fishy to me.
A claimed 20% improvement is enormous, the worlds energy problems would be solved at a stroke. Incredible. Nobel prize material.
Funny there is no mention of it on Professor Tao's webpage:
http://www.temple...tao.html
Also I can find no independant corroboration of the article which does not originate from STWA Inc. who sponsored it.
So don't believe everything you read on the web, even on Physorg.com.

I'll still need to see proof. Truck engine manufacturers worldwide have been spending huge funds to gain 1/2% in diesel efficiency. For something as simple as this to gain 20% in net efficiency seems too good to be true. Possible I suppose, but .... One question is, where does the gain come from? Is it reducing the total energy going out the exhaust as heat (typically 40% of total energy in). Must be, because it's VERY difficult to see how simply electrifying the fuel can reduce the thermal conductivity of the cylinder walls, valve cooling circuits etc. Possibly if the engine power increases a LOT with no increase in cylinder wall temperature, but how likely is that? To gain 20% of total from the exhaust heat loss would mean that the engine only would put out 20% instead of 40% total energy as exhaust heat, which means that the pistons must expand the exhaust gases by a very much larger ratio, again highly questionable.

Don't invest until an independent engineer knowledgeable in thermodynamics investigates the workings.

What car did they test, what type of diesel engine was it?

It was an old diesel engine, then I could possibly see a 20% increase. But if it's a recently developed engine, those suckers really atomize the gas through very fine injectors.

It sounds like the device imparts an electric charge on the fuel mist particles. Presumably this encourages repulsion between the particles and improves the fine particulate size. This leads to an increase in surface area of the fuel and improves combustion efficiency. The side effects are more heat, less big chain hydro-carbons (smoke).
The 20% efficiency is useless because it is based on road driving. The road conditions could have changed which would swamp this with error.

Electrorheology generally relates to fluids that become MORE viscous when an electric field is applied, not less... keep your skeptic hats on people.

It sounds like the device imparts an electric charge on the fuel mist particles.

Actually, no. Their paper states that such a method could be used but would probably use too much electricity to be practical.

It sounds like the device imparts an electric charge on the fuel mist particles.

Actually, no. Their paper states that such a method could be used but would probably use too much electricity to be practical.

Thanks.

Oh, looks like I really twisted some nipples with that response. You hippies can't stand a little reality intruding on your big oil fantasies?

If this is the kind of crap you like to defend then take a trip on over to keelynet.com. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, but most likely complete BS.

Keely is cool, but as Holm said, keep that skeptic hat on. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's true.

Roach, a propane injection unit is added to a diesel engine to atomize the diesel fuel. Not to run the vehicle on propane.

I have an idea that will increase your gas mileage by 100%. First, find somebody with the same mass as you, then drive them somewhere when you both happen to have the same destination in mind. Failing that, buy a bike. It should be possible for everybody in good shape to bike about 30km a day. If you commute further than that each day, I would like to extend my sincerest condolences, and curse the guy who planned the city in which you live.

I have been following this technology for months. I manage a fleet of large diesel powered vessels (ships) and would love to fit these on my engines. I contacted the company via email after I read an article about how they fit these devices to trucks and have not heard back from them. Nor have I seen any real hard data to support their claims. My fuel bill for one ship can be upwards of $20,000.00 per week, I would love to knock $4000.00 per week off that bill and would gladly pay to do it.

I have an idea that will increase your gas mileage by 100%. First, find somebody with the same mass as you, then drive them somewhere when you both happen to have the same destination in mind. Failing that, buy a bike. It should be possible for everybody in good shape to bike about 30km a day. If you commute further than that each day, I would like to extend my sincerest condolences, and curse the guy who planned the city in which you live.

That's a great idea unless you live in a regional climate that is absolutely brutal to do that in. I bet there isn't much bike riding going on in Alaska. I know there is none around MA in winter time.

4 mpg on a diesel isn't a huge breakthrough, ...

It is significant on an American car. And they are the world's largest consumers, as well as having the lowest statutory efficiency limits of any country that has such limits.

This is a first class scam. However I am not sure whether Dr. Tao, a physics professor with no previous interest in internal combustion engines, had been taken advantage of by STWA people and got the "study" published in the well-known scholarly journal Energy and Fuels. But the story is not over yet. A university of Toronto combustion professor wrote a Comment on Tao's paper claiming that laws of thermodynamics are violated. See "Gulder "Comments on Electrorheology Leads Efficient Combustion by Tao et al." Energy and Fules, ASAP in press (doi:10.1021/ef800829v). Prof. Gulder's Comment can be accessed at http://arrow.utia...Z_Energy&Fuels2009comb_eff.pdf