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.
- » See also: Factory Five Electric ‘33 Ford Roadster Debuts at SEMA
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“I believe all you’ll get is a 1960’s Pinto event.”
Ford Pinto was introduced September 11th, 1970.
Heh.
@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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?