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.
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
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.
You Might Also Like
Canada Post Purchases Over 1,000 Ford Transit Connect Vans
Americans Moving Away From V6, V8 Engines
Laser-Ignited Nanoparticle Engines Could be Way More Efficient, Less Polluting
New Ford Police Interceptor Improves Gas Mileage By 25%
October 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
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.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
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.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
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…
October 5th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“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.
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.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:35 am
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.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“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.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I remember seeing something like this years ago. Maybe it just took this long to develop it into something that won’t blow up.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
“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.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
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..
October 7th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The lack of understanding exhibited here of how a modern internal combustion engine regulates proper air/fuel ratios is simply astounding. Which is why, I guess, there are so many high school graduates billing $75/hour (and up) to turn wrenches on automobiles.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Years ago a company came out with an intake gasket that had a screen in the path of the intake that actually worked but in only part of the RPM range because it restricted overall flow rate.
The theory here is no less reasonable.
Greater atomization of the fuel has always been known to increase burn efficiency, that is why the injectors have been moved closer and closer to the intake valve so that the fuel droplets didn’t have as much time to fall out of suspension and reform into larger droplets. With greater burn efficiency, the the amount of fuel added to the mix can be reduced for optimum fuel efficiency.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Smokey (forget his last name) utilized a turbo charger as a homogenizer of fuel and air in an engine design of his. Seems to me, if that worked, perhaps fuel could be injected into an air stream as it entered a turbocharger, and everything rammed home as the intake valve opens. I understand he took GM or Chrysler wigs for a ride in a four cylinder version of this engine, placed in one of the no longer made small Chrysler cars.
Perhaps it wasn’t real efficient, but it did develop around 75 horsepower per cylinder. What ever came of that I wonder? Will this great idea go the same direction?
October 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“I believe all you’ll get is a 1960’s Pinto event.”
Ford Pinto was introduced September 11th, 1970.
Heh.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
@GashKerwin, a slight quibble, you said:
“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.”
Evaporation works due to the highest energy molecules in a liquid escaping the liquid as a gas, lowering the average energy per molecule of the remaining liquid. However, a combustion chamber is essentially a closed system, so evaporation inside the combustion chamber results a transfer of heat energy from the liquid droplets to the gaseous fuel / air mixture, but it does not reduce the overall heat energy in the combustion chamber.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Hmmm Researchers at Temple University vs some guy selling stuff out of his trunk at the county fair. I don’t think we have a “1960’s Pinto event.” Whatever the hell that was. Boy, I do bet a 1960 pinto is worth a lot of money now though. You don’t seem them around these days. Or in the 60’s for that matter.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
A strong electrical charge on a drop of liquid causes it to break into smaller drops — I’ve seen it happen with a water-drop electrostatic generator. The effect has been known since the eighteenth century. More drops for the same amount of gasoline means more surface area, and better combustion.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Why don’t they FREE the FISH CARBURATOR! Why that one invention alone could FREE the world from the israeli/arab conspiracy over oil. The FISH CARBURATOR could get 300MPG in a diesel truck pulling 100,000 pounds over a 12,000 ft high MOUNTAIN PASS! The energy contained in a GALLON of gas could power MOST of the U.S. for a YEAR if it were used efficeintly. It’s BIG OIL and the jooooze that keep us from energy independence!
October 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
So where are they going to get the power from to do the whole ‘more droplets’ thing? How much power does it require? Do they understand that electricity and fuel could combine to give a deadly result?
October 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
QUESTION: How making fuel molecules stick together create smaller droplets?
To quote the description of this fuel saving device:
“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.”
Given this self-contradictory statement, how does making the fuel molecules stick together create smaller droplets?
October 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
This does sound like snake oil, but if it works it could be good. One wonders if his lab setup got the energy from the alternator (IE the fuel he’s burning) or a bench supply.
Also, smaller droplets, while not affecting the fuel/air ratio as was mentioned above, will burn faster, making for a more explosive combustion than normal. This could cause excessive wear, higher peak pressure/temperature and affect the tuning of the engine. It may not be a good thing to do to an engine that was not designed for this.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Not being a chemist, or physicist, i will pose my opinion/observation in question form (so as not to appear totally naive).
Wouldn’t an electrical charge through a molecule cause the atoms within to draw a little closer, thus making the droplets smaller and less frictional?
Wouldn’t a more thorough burn increase combustion chamber pressure, resulting in higher fuel efficiency in lower octane fuels? As well as increase acceleration response and horsepower and/or low end torque?
Since an internal combustion engine is essentially an air pump, wouldn’t increasing to air part of the fuel air ratio to interact with the fuel part of the ratio be a good thing?
Being a former Air Force jet engine mechanic, I am familiar with the importance of efficient fuel atomization. Bad atomization can kill a jet engine. So it only stands to reason the more efficient atomization can only be good for a piston engine. Am I wrong?
As to the question of increased chamber temperatures “melting” cylinder heads, or whatever. I believe that to be highly unlikely. Carbon deposits increase head and piston temperatures because they retain heat and retard the heat transfer capacity of the metal. These deposits are created by the inherent incomplete burning of petroleum based fuels and the additives in them. More thorough burning minimizes these deposits and allows the cooling jackets to do their job more efficiently. Am I missing something?
Another recently developed product that achieves higher chamber pressures and more thorough burn is the “pulse plug”, developed in conjunction with Sandia Laboratories. It deliver, via built in capacitors, 1 MILLION watts of energy per firing, as opposed to the average 500 watts. A friend installed them in his 2007 Xterra and his highway mileage jumped from 17 to 24. He has had them for 2 months and has ahd NO problem with higher than normal temperatures. He has, however, had to lighten up on the gas pedal, due to an increased rate of acceleration.
I’m ordering mine next month. (They cost $25 a piece and I have a V8, as well as a kid in college!)
Am I nuts?
May 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Nice change to hear American “Motor Heads” chawing over the diesel notion again, just don’t let GM build them this time you try them, stick to Mercedes and VW, the folks with “Know How”! Hyundai has a new 2 L diesel coming soon, perhaps not to America though due to the huge anti-diesel sentiment in the market place and the diesel rip off at the pumps. Just dream with me for a moment – if every American vehicle on the road were replaced mystically overnight with diesel engined machines, 40% less oil would be used,the next day, simply because the engine design is that much more efficient! Now, go to a Diesel/Prius format for another whopping, and proven 20% boost. goddammit! I think I solved the current crisis! Now, dream on a bit further, and make a law that only bio-diesel from Algae can be used on the roads, domestic algae, bio-diesel! Holy shvt! watch the jobs open up to produce algae based bio-diesel! Now we have cars with range, jobs, and we don’t have to pay off the OPEC folks with our sons and daughters in their dirty little religious wars, or even pay the blackmail prices they demand for oil! Just for Hellery, SEE: The University of New Hampshire is exploring ways of forced production of algae for biodiesel that is yielding 10,000 gallons per acre and uses salty water. Their calculations show that a tiny area of the Sonoran desert in New Mexico (about 9%) is enough area to produce all of the transportation fuel in the U.S. using their production techniques. Already, one company is experimenting with algae production stations at a power plant to capture the CO2 from the exhaust and use it to make algae for biodiesel” http://www.itsgood4.us/biodiesel.htm
AND:http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.17c.html