Simple device, major fuel savings

[pcs0snq]

Simple device, major fuel savings

[Skwyre7]

Skeptics, please raise one hand and wave the other.


Electric fields have no effect on non-polar molecules, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. I call shenanigans.

[Shiba3420]

Well, I don't think anyone would disagree that fuel injection is more fuel efficient than carboration as the the fuel is better dispersed & you get a more efficient burn. This sounds like an enhancement of that. I suspect it would have no benefit for the latest fuel injection cars where the spray is really quite fog like, but it might be able to help older vehicles. I can't really say either way, but its possible.

The increases are fairly small with them putting a cap at 20%, so its more reasonable than many claims. Maybe we will see more of it in the future.

Its also possible it works, but not the way described.

[MyPart]

Isn't this similar in concept to the magnets that go around the fuel lines?

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by MyPart

Isn't this similar in concept to the magnets that go around the fuel lines?

Physical concept, no. One is magnetic, the other electric. Despite Maxwell's linking of the two, these products seem to keep them separate.

Marketing concept, yes, under the closely paired principles of 's*n*a*k*e*o*i*l' and 'g*u*l*l*i*b*l*e'.

Why do they always use road tests that produce results well within the range possible by simply changing driver behavior? I want to see controlled dynamometer tests.

[jstol3]

It seems that gadgets and gizmos sell well but nobody is clamoring to learn hypermiling!

[xcel]

Hi Paul:



___Good Luck

___Wayne

[CarlD]

Originally Posted by Shiba3420

Well, I don't think anyone would disagree that fuel injection is more fuel efficient than carboration as the the fuel is better dispersed & you get a more efficient burn.

Actually, I will disagree with that statement. A venturi is exceptionally good at atomizing fuel. A fuel injector would have to be operated at pressures >100psi to work close to as good. Trouble is, a carburetor only works optimally at a given temperature/density and requires band-aids for cold weather (choke), full power (power valves,etc), idle (mixture needles), transition (accelerator pumps,secondaries.) And three-way catalysts require both rich (CO) and lean (O2) mixtures to both oxidize and reduce, something that is not easily done with a carb. But for pure steady state atomization, a carb is very hard to beat.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by pcs0snq

Man you guys not only have the tightest click I have seen (on the web), but are also the most skeptical about everything you did not hatch.

Guys this is from Temple University’s Physics Department not some garage and the ISA has very strict ethical rules about false claims.

I'll give them a call Monday and see if the can send over a Burning Bush for ya...lol

Looking further, I found that some of the evidence I demand (dynamometer tests) is actually included in the original paper, but vanished in the "journalism" process. See:
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...ef8004898.html

Give me a while to digest this.

I'll make no apologies for being skeptical, because most of the claims out there are worthless marketing claptrap. Most engineers and scientists have mental filters to sort out claims that deserve further attention. These filters are never perfect, but are absolutely essential to cut through the volume and still have any time left for productivity. Whoever wrote the referenced ISA item did not write it to pass my initial screen. An uncontrolled road test of one vehicle is about as convincing as a non-blind medical treatment study of one patient.

A skim of the TU paper shows a dynamometer test with a 5.5% improvement in BSFC. That is much more interesting.

[brick]

Droplet formation is a pretty important aspect of hydrocarbon combustion and a widely studied (and fairly complex) field. That said, the correct default position in science is skepticism. Maybe they have something with this device, but no realist would simply accept it without taking a thorough look at the research.