Increasing engine efficiency through electric fields

[fireant911]

I post this information because others too may find it interesting. However, I am also extremely hesitant due to the practically guaranteed response by our resident expert on everything. To him – please stop as you are damaging the message board and, trust me, you are not convincing anyone of anything. Your pompous attitude is extremely unsettling and unwanted… To the real people here – I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about the process described below.

A plethora of gimmicks are available that are touted as a method to increase fuel mileage. Typically, all are quickly dispelled as being a complete waste of money. The following process, however, captivated my interest.

In the latest issue of Scientific American, there is a relatively short paragraph entitled “More Fluid Mileage” by Charles Q. Choi in the News Scan section. The point of the article is that by using electric fields on fuels that the viscosity of the fuel is decreased. By obtaining a less viscous liquid, smaller droplets of fuel (presumably greater atomization) can be injected in the vehicle’s engine. The smaller droplets of fuel, in turn, produce a more efficient engine. The article (which is not an advertisement) further states that this efficiency can approach 20%. Pennsylvania’s Temple University outfitted a diesel vehicle with such a device and the mileage per gallon increased 18.9% - from 32 to 38 mpg. The electrical consumption by the electric fields was less than 0.1 watt. The technical name of the process is Electrorheology and there was an earlier article in Scientific American in October, 1993 named “Electrorhelogical Fluids”.

Apparently, this is not a recent discovery; however, it may be in regards to the application in engines for increasing the efficiency. For those subscribers of Energy & Fuels, another article was to be available in the November 19 issue. Does anyone know anything or have any practical experience with this process?

[Hugh R]

just tape a magnet to your aluminum intake manifold.

[bell]

don't forget the tinfoil hat

[red-beard]

If this were the case, then you would have a significant amount of unburned hydrocarbon coming out of the exhaust. Since there isn't, it won't help.

[Aurel]

First thing I`d like to know is how an electric field can affect non-charged gasoline molecules. If they were ionized maybe, but otherwise, the electric field would not affect them.

Aurel

[RWebb]

could the electric field induce a charge distribution in the molecule?

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by RWebb

could the electric field induce a charge distribution in the molecule?

Yes, and the stabilization of emulsions relies on polar molecules. So I can understand that an electric field may modify the polarity of molecules, and destablilise emulsions, making a fluid less viscous. And in the engine, it is a gas-air emulsion.

Aurel

[svandamme]

slap a gererator on top, and the car will otherwise wear out before you even get to empty the tank... scientifically proven

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by bell

don't forget the tinfoil hat

You can borrow mine. Works well. In fact I was getting 50mpg just last week.

[Schumi]

Energy balance anyone? How large of an electric field does this take? Pretty large I bet. And where's that energy come from? Your alternator? The added current draw and thus horsepower loss will most likely outweigh any increase - or at least match any gain - of the system.

And I hope that you mean the 20% increase in efficiency is an increase in fuel economy, not thermal efficiency. This would be absurd. Thermal efficiencies of gasoline engines usually are around %30-35 and that's where they stay. Even an ideal thermodynamic otto cycle will only near 50%. Adding 20 to that would be impossible with just a small gain in combustion propagation due to fuel atomization.

[Tishabet]

Forget for one second the purported mechanism for greater atomization... assuming a miraculous black box that creates the smallest fuel droplets possible without using any energy, is there validity to the smallest atomization = greatest efficiency thesis?

The smaller droplets of fuel, in turn, produce a more efficient engine. The article (which is not an advertisement) further states that this efficiency can approach 20%. Pennsylvania’s Temple University outfitted a diesel vehicle with such a device and the mileage per gallon increased 18.9% - from 32 to 38 mpg.

[fireant911]

The article in Energy & Fuels, for those interested, is located at the link below.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef8004898

[p911dad]

Very interesting, Darryl. I think posting the article was a good one, as an idea like this would naturally invite a sceptical response. We've all seen the devices touted on the back pages of Mechanics Illustrated. Glenn

[fireant911]

For those that are interested, here is an update...

Using Temple University's technology, "Popular Science (February, 2009 page 34) reports that a California company (Save The World Air, Inc - http://www.stwa.com/) has built such a device for 'big rigs' using electric fields to reduce this fuel's viscosity. Fuel economy improved as much as 10% in these large trucks. The article also indicates that, if all goes to plan, a smaller version will be available for diesel cars by 2011.

[red-beard]

Again, unless we are finding a bunch of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust before, how is atomizing the fuel more going to help? I do understand with this being a diesel, that the fuel has not flashed to a vapor, and so we could have an issue. But this is doubtful to help on a modern gasoline engine.

But, back to my original statement. Unless you have a signifigant portion of the fuel exiting the system as an unburned, or incompletly burned, hydrocarbon, you will not see any gain.