New Fuel-Injection Shock Treatment Increases Mileage
Existing diesel and gasoline engines could get up to a 10% boost in fuel efficiency from an electrifying add-on.
Researchers at Temple University in Philadelphia have developed an improved fuel-injection system that is simple and affordable enough to use in existing cars. Through a strong electric charge to fuel on its way to the engine’s cylinders, scientists were able to increase the fuel efficiency of a Mercedes-Benz 300D from 32 to 38 mpg. If all the autos the United States installed the apparatus, over 300 million barrels of gasoline and about 150 million barrels of diesel could be saved.
- » Read more on Car hacks / Mods
- » See peer reviews of Fuel Efficient Cars and Accessories at Green Home
The device makes the fuel 10% thinner, allowing it to break into smaller droplets. Fuel burns from the outside of each molecule, where the oxygen makes contact, so smaller drops with higher total surface area burn quicker and more efficiently. The device electrically charges the gas molecules to cause them to stick together, lowering total friction and increasing the fluidity.
“Making the droplets smaller has been a goal for a while,” said Rongjia Tao, the scientist who led the research. “Of course they didn’t consider using an electric field, they talked about using very high pressure.”
According to Tao, the device would currently come at a cost of $50 per-piston. Temple University holds the patent and says they’ve already been contacted by multiple car manufacturers regarding potential licensing.
Photo Credit: Daviddesign on Flickr under Creative Commons License.
I can’t help but think this sounds like one of those snake oil devices, although maybe this actually accomplishes what the simple add-on snake oil devices
claim to.
If it is true, great! But won’t they have to worry about NOx emissions. If the fuel burns more completely (less hydrocarbon emissions), the combustion chamber will be hotter producing more NOx emissions.
Above Quote: “Fuel burns from the outside of each molecule, where the oxygen makes contact, so smaller drops with higher total surface area burn quicker and more efficiently.”
..
Seems like a load of Bullcrud to me.
Here, let me put this electrical cable in your gas tank?
I’m sorry, but I believe all you’ll get is a 1960’s Pinto event.
I’m calling BS right now. An electric charge won’t change how the fuel sprays into the cylinder, nor will it make the computer send less fuel into the cylinder. Last time I checked, of all the sensors under the hood of a modern engine, there is no such thing as a fuel density sensor…
“But won’t they have to worry about NOx emissions.”
Um catalytic converters much?
“Seems like a load of Bullcrud to me.
Here, let me put this electrical cable in your gas tank?
I’m sorry, but I believe all you’ll get is a 1960’s Pinto event.”
You sir just don’t know anything about chemistry and shouldn’t be talking.
Smaller drops mean higher air/fuel ratio.. Meaning higher temps. .Meaning higher Exhaust gas temps..meaning melting of cylinder heads…. But if got the “electricity” part to work and cause it to have lower temps then they did something amazing.
Inventions are simply the result of someone trying something that has not been tried before and finding a good effect or result. This sounds like it fits. The analysis of how it works is quite suspect though.
Without the information on the age of the Mercedes diesel, we have no way of knowing if this was electronic fuel injection of mechanical injection. If mechanical and the device actually lowers the viscosity, then the fuel injected should increase both lowering mileage and increasing particulate matter in the exhaust. If the system is electrical injection then the sensors would limit the fuel based on the oxygen sensors and the smaller droplets would indeed burn faster and more completely resulting in greater power and reduced fuel consumption. Current emissions controls on diesels will be able to adapt to changes in fuel density without problem. With electrical injection systems the air fuel ratio is controlled by changing the length of the injection pulse. With diesel engines there is no air flow control as such. This lack of restriction in the intake manifold is why diesel engines do not suffer from “pumping losses” which are caused by a partial vacuum in the intake manifold. This is one of the reasons why they are more efficient.
Overall this sounds like it is worth more research.
“ktan91 said on October 6th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Smaller drops mean higher air/fuel ratio.. Meaning higher temps. .Meaning higher Exhaust gas temps..meaning melting of cylinder heads…. But if got the “electricity” part to work and cause it to have lower temps then they did something amazing.”
Since you posted at 1:30 am, I’ll assume you weren’t thinking right. If I take a gallon of water, and dump it into a 5 gallon bucket, the ratio of air to water is 4:1. If I take a gallon of water, split it into two half gallon jugs and dump them both at the same time into the bucket, there are 4 gallons of air, and 1 gallon of water: 4:1 ratio. If I take that same gallon, put it into a spray tank that will mist it into the bucket, there will still be 1 gallon of water and 4 gallons of air, but now there will be water suspended in that air, and there will be droplets of water, not just a puddle at the bottom. If I increase the atomozation of the water, I will be able to get smaller droplets, leaving more of it suspended in the air, and a more homogenious mixture of the water and air in the bucket.
So hopefully we can all agree that there won’t be any difference in air fuel ratio simply because the droplets of injected fuel are smaller.
There are also other reasons that this is good. Smaller droplets will mean a more well mixed air fuel mixture within the combustion chamber, eliminating hot/cold spots. (Head geometry and intake charge velocity also play a role here.)
Yet another potential benefit I can see is that there will be a greater chance for evaporative cooling. As we all hopefully know, liquid gasonline doesn’t burn, gasoline vapor does. So by having smaller droplets, they will evaporate more quickly and easily, therefore actually LOWERING air temperatures at combustion time, which would mean LOWER EGTs.
I remember seeing something like this years ago. Maybe it just took this long to develop it into something that won’t blow up.
“Um catalytic converters much?”
While catalytic converters take care of most NOx emissions, some NOx still gets through and auto manufacturers still have to worry about things like combustion temperatures to stay under the mandated limits.
I hope they’re on to something here.
Hmmmm…
Might be onto something here.
We tuners (hot rodders, enthusiasts, etc.) have known for a long time that increasing fuel pressure from 3bar to 4 bar yields MPG gains.
We learned that by accident, though. The pressure increase was to keep our turbo-fed engines from leaning out & blowing up. Negative side is, of course, more pressure. Ergo, more gas spraying around during a mishap.
As for the electrical field… probably helps. Think of what a once impossible electrical field does for a rail gun.
Technology marches forward..