Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

[brewnog]

That said, I have been looking to alternative fuels as a most effective route. These include bio-diesel, fuel cells and flex fuels as well as other technologies. In my opinion the answer lies in the works of an inventor, Stan Meyer. His work in running cars off of pure water should be taken a lot more seriously. However, there are a lot of knock off ideas and hacks claiming to use his principles.

As a technical person, you should know better than to believe the claims of Meyer. Water is not a fuel.

 

[turbo]

Yep. We may be eventually able to use solar energy to separate H and O economically and recombine them as a fuel, but Meyer's stuff was pure hokum. The laws of thermodynamics are not the "suggestions" of thermodynamics.

 

[elec2050]

I guess, I read in Popular mechanics that one company in CA has started commercial production of bio-fuel unit to be used in backyard, needs tree leaves and branches + bio waste like vegetables to make fuel. cost of unit $10K

Rick

 

[Naicamine]

To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you are not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

 

[turbo]

To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you is not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

How much energy is required to dissociate Oxygen and Hydrogen from water? How much energy is required to separate and compress these gases? How much energy is required to transport these gases and provide for their recombination to provide "clean" power? Am I surrounded by idiots?

 

[Naicamine]

Am I surrounded by idiots?

So much for not trying to offend...

As I stated half an amp is required to split the molecule, in a process that IS NOT ELECTROLYSIS as that is NOT efficient.

The compression shouldn't be a problem as it already occurs in any ICE I have ever seen. Well any that worked worth anything, anyway. There are those that had holes in a piston. There is no transportation of gases, only the water. In the past I hear this has been done previously by a remarkable device they called a "fuel pump." And I was pretty sure that since hydrogen is much more combustible than gasoline, it could possibly be that it may just burn more efficiently. Just a hunch. Maybe my idea of using a standard ignition coil is slightly flawed but I think I'll manage to find an alternative that isn't far from similar.

As for "clean fuel" I don't know if you realize that gasoline isn't exactly pristine, with the sediment from being buried in the ground and all.

Maybe brewnog has something credible to offer?

 

[Naicamine]

I should specify that it is not standard electrolysis. It involves the same ideas but instead of brute forcing the molecules apart, it uses electro-chemistry to its benefit.

And I didnt mean to come on strong. Its just that I am not prepared to listen to cynicism. Only facts.

 

[TR345]

Depending on the car, you can gain milage by installing roller rockers(rocker arms that have a roller bearing instead of a pivoting action) this reduces friction, increases engine life and adds efficiency. Make sure you replace the push rods and lifters as well so that they wear together right. You may be able to get a new camshaft designed for fuel economy as well.

You can get aluminum cylinder heads which are very much lighter than cast iron. You can also get an aluminum block for some engines. Aluminum intake manifold instead of cast iron. You can also get aluminum rims to eliminate weight. Carbon fiber hood/body panels also.

Headers/muffler/pipes, you can also use that insulating wrap around your headers to reduce extra heat in the engine compartment.

K&N or similar air filter/cold air intake(rout your plastic intake attachment so that it is in the front of the car with direct air contact(through the grill or something).

If you don't care about looks and comfort so much, you can strip out all the carpet and interior materials/plastic and stuff. I have seen want to be street racers do this and eliminate a considerable amount of extra weight.

Buying a hybrid cost a lot of money right, like 30 grand or so plus. How much gas can you buy with 30 grand? That much money alone could pay for years of gas. A couple years ago I bought a 1989 honda accord LXI for $1500. That car got 35-40 miles per gallon, and it is one of the most dependable cars ever made, my friends parents had the same car and it went to about 450,000 mile before anything major went wrong(transmission finally went). Why buy an expensive new car when there are old cars that get great gas milage. I believe those older accords got better milage than the new ones do.

 

[TR345]

To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you are not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

I remember from about 5 years ago I was reading about a type of fuel that was made by using a certain chemical to make water and oil mix which resulted in more efficient fuel. It had a specific name, and I'm pretty sure it was legit, can't remember, but I found this link which sound similar, sorry if it isn't fully credible.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/03/news/business/doc47c5005337448125816114.txt

 

[TR345]

Here is another link http://inventorspot.com/articles/breaking_the_oil_addiction_oil_and_water_do_mix_in_india_13751
well work looking into. While your there, don't miss the article entitle 10 ways to have fun with boobs, the write up is pretty funny. http://inventorspot.com/10_boob_products

Also wanted to add that you can eliminate your heavy heater chore if you live in hawaii or something and have no need for a heater.

 

[turbo]

And I didnt mean to come on strong. Its just that I am not prepared to listen to cynicism. Only facts.

It takes more energy to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water, separate, and compress them than you can get back by recombining them. You can reject this simple concept as "cynicism" if you want, but only if you can re-write the laws of physics and force the universe to obey the new "laws".

If there were a way to leverage this process, even to come up energy-neutral, we might be driving hydrogen cars today.

 

[Naicamine]

In the processes used for welding, such has been the case, but with what I have come to understand, I haven't been convinced that there is not a more economical way to do this.

I believe that the key is in high voltage and high frequency. Nikola Tesla did a lot of work that went misconstrued and unrecognized. We are not driving hydrogen cars today for the simple reason that no one smart enough to do it cared enough to do it or believed enough that it could be done.

However, due to gas prices and thanks to Honda, we are about to see them. It's just that the design is flawed. The hydrogen comes from natural gas, which pollutes as much as gasoline, and is put into a tank to make a bunch of portable hydrogen bombs.

I am not going to be able to do it myself. I am not smart enough. I need people to help me design the electronics.

Using a predicted value for the resonant frequency of Hydrogen at 42580000 Hz, then running somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 volts, depending on desired engine speed, at this frequency should be sufficient to break the bonds.

Obviously this is a rough estimate but its somewhere to start.

The issue is not separation, as the during extraction, the anode collects oxygen and the electrode collects the hydrogen. There are many established ways to bring them out using no supplemental energy. Nor is it transport as there is no reason for any hydrogen to go through the fuel system until just before injection. The only problem is finding how much energy is needed to break covalent bonds using resonant frequency. Some argue that this is impossible while Nikola Tesla knew with enough effort he could crack the world like an egg.

Although he created some enemies he did demonstrate that there was something to his calculations by setting up a machine that hit the resonant frequency of buildings, and causing buildings surrounding his own to shake and almost fall. After calls to the police and a moment of realizing the danger, he terminated the experiment with a sledge.

 

[brewnog]

I hope either of you are not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

My credentials are that I'm a degree qualified engineer, with 3 years experience working in powertrain.

However, the GCSEs I have in physics and chemistry are enough for me to know that water cannot be separated to its bare elements without the input of an amount of energy greater than what will be gained during its subsequent combustion.

If this "cynicism" is not enough like "fact" for you, then perhaps rather than look for others to convince you otherwise, you pick up a few science books and learn for yourself.

Finally, it's worth remembering that great technology isn't the result of inventors "believing" that their creation will work. It's a result of them fully understanding (and using) the science behind their goal.

 

[Naicamine]

My credentials are that I'm a degree qualified engineer, with 3 years experience working in powertrain.

However, the GCSEs I have in physics and chemistry are enough for me to know that water cannot be separated to its bare elements without the input of an amount of energy greater than what will be gained during its subsequent combustion.

If this "cynicism" is not enough like "fact" for you, then perhaps rather than look for others to convince you otherwise, you pick up a few science books and learn for yourself.

The cynicism I referred to was not from you. You hadn't posted yet other than to say you thought it couldn't be done. I apologize for any offense.

I also appreciate the advice, and I do consider it meaningful, although I do understand the principles of research.

 

[brewnog]

The cynicism I referred to was not from you. You hadn't posted yet other than to say you thought it couldn't be done. I apologize for any offense.

Then perhaps you should answer Turbo1's question about bond energies.

 

[Naicamine]

I also appreciate the advice, and I do consider it meaningful, although I do understand the principles of research.

 

[turbo]

I also appreciate the advice, and I do consider it meaningful, although I do understand the principles of research.

The first law of thermodynamics relates to the conservation of energy. You can never get more energy out of combining hydrogen and oxygen than it took to separate them initially, even in a perfectly 100% process. Of course, such a 100% efficient method has not been developed - there will be losses at every stage. There is no magic method to dissociate hydrogen and oxygen from water - you will ALWAYS need to input more energy to break those bonds than you can ever get back by recombining the gases. Then when you have collected the oxygen and hydrogen, you will have to cool and compress them so that they can be contained in volumes modest enough to fit in a vehicle and be burned in its engine (ICE, turbine, whatever). All this requires a large and power-hungry infrastructure.

There will be combustion heat losses no matter what type of engine is used, and losses due to friction. If you decide to use fuel cells, there will be resistive losses, perhaps 50% heat loss, and some additional loss due the transport of unreacted fuel - then there will be additional losses in the electric motor and drive train.

 

[Naicamine]

Where do magnets get their energy?

Maybe I can use the principles there to help me.

 

[Naicamine]

When you use hydrogen as a fuel, the reaction of
combustion: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O produces a certain amount of energy we can call E

Accordingly, as the law states, when you make hydrogen from water, the reaction of
electrolysis: 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2 requires a minimum amount of energy E.

I know what the law is. However, why is it that you can have a magnet stuck to a surface for years with no supplemental energy source?

 

[TR345]

Magnets have extra electrons and hold that charge which gives them a magnetic field. When they lose their charge, they lose the magnetic field caused by it. The electrons don't transfer into your refrigerator and to the ground, but the magnetic field is still there and that is what holds the magnet.

Only certain materials are capable of holding a charge like that. An electro-magnet using copper requires an electric current supplied by a power source which passes through it. Magnetic fields and electric fields are two parts of one system.

 

[TR345]

How about diesel water emulsion though. The water is in the fuel as H2o, but H2o does not burn, so somewhere in the combustion process it must be broken up. Why can this be achieved while actually increasing fuel economy? It seems like it would reduce economy if more energy was needed to break it up than gained in this process?

 

[Naicamine]

When the ions all line up in the same way, with their north poles to the south pole of the next any material can be magnetized, however it becomes difficult to do as the depending on the material. It is dependent upon the ability of these negative ions to move freely.

Where does the energy come from in the first place?

 

[Q_Goest]

Hi Naicamine,

When you use hydrogen as a fuel, the reaction of
combustion: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O produces a certain amount of energy we can call E

Accordingly, as the law states, when you make hydrogen from water, the reaction of
electrolysis: 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2 requires a minimum amount of energy E.

I know what the law is. However, why is it that you can have a magnet stuck to a surface for years with no supplemental energy source?

No offense intended, but this thread isn't about perpetual motion machines such as you're wanting to discuss. It's about saving fuel. Discussions about the water device you're referring to (which is a perpetual motion machine and obviously won't work) will simply get this thread locked as on "Overly Speculative Post".

From the rules:

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, with an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

If you'd like to continue the discussion about this perpetual motion machine that you're keen about, please start a new thread (which will be locked quickly by the way).

 

[brewnog]

How about diesel water emulsion though. The water is in the fuel as H2o, but H2o does not burn, so somewhere in the combustion process it must be broken up. Why can this be achieved while actually increasing fuel economy? It seems like it would reduce economy if more energy was needed to break it up than gained in this process?

Look at Diesel exhaust gas; a very large proportion of that is water vapour. Most of this is a product of combustion, but some is straight from the fuel too. Any hydrogen/oxygen bonds which are broken during combustion are re-made again very, very quickly during the combustion reaction, and still ultimately released as water vapour in the exhaust. Why do you suggest water within the fuel increases fuel economy? Sure, you can inject water into the cylinder to improve efficiency, but this is due to charge cooling effects from evaporation, and not hydrogen/oxygen reaction kinetics.

 

[brewnog]

I know what the law is. However, why is it that you can have a magnet stuck to a surface for years with no supplemental energy source?

The same way you can have a book resting on a table, or a ball hanging on a chain, indefinitely.

 

[Naicamine]

Thats partly true.

Except that magnets have negatively charged ions, but the key is that they must all face the same way.
The more facing in line, the stronger the magnetic field. Any material can be magnetized by aligning the ions.

But where does the constant energy come from, and what is the attraction?

 

[TR345]

Look at Diesel exhaust gas; a very large proportion of that is water vapour. Most of this is a product of combustion, but some is straight from the fuel too. Any hydrogen/oxygen bonds which are broken during combustion are re-made again very, very quickly during the combustion reaction, and still ultimately released as water vapour in the exhaust. Why do you suggest water within the fuel increases fuel economy? Sure, you can inject water into the cylinder to improve efficiency, but this is due to charge cooling effects from evaporation, and not hydrogen/oxygen reaction kinetics.

I'm talking about a mix of diesel and gas like using an emulsion that makes them mix instead of separate.

 

[TR345]

Look at Diesel exhaust gas; a very large proportion of that is water vapour. Most of this is a product of combustion, but some is straight from the fuel too. Any hydrogen/oxygen bonds which are broken during combustion are re-made again very, very quickly during the combustion reaction, and still ultimately released as water vapour in the exhaust. Why do you suggest water within the fuel increases fuel economy? Sure, you can inject water into the cylinder to improve efficiency, but this is due to charge cooling effects from evaporation, and not hydrogen/oxygen reaction kinetics.

I'm talking about this stuff, they use an emulsion "sauce" to make oil and water mix instead of separate and mix water in at like 25% water 75% diesel.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/bre ... _india_13751

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_9_6/ai_85591526

I would be interested if anyone could help explain how this all works.

When I read about it 5 years ago, it was supposed to be like 40 year old technology, but that may have been different, not sure if that was diesel like this?

 

[Naicamine]

In a diesel, people have been burning old transmission fluid for years but the emissions is terribly worse than diesel fuel. You can use vegetable oil, or there is even a design to run off of processed tires and roadkill or anything carbon based.

Some people add kerosene to it, but I understand there are possibly ill effects from this.

In a gas motor, most of the same things can be used, but it usually requires that gasoline be mixed into the fuel to thin it out.

 

[TR345]

In a diesel, people have been burning old transmission fluid for years but the emissions is terribly worse than diesel fuel. You can use vegetable oil, or there is even a design to run off of processed tires and roadkill or anything carbon based.

Some people add kerosene to it, but I understand there are possibly ill effects from this.

In a gas motor, most of the same things can be used, but it usually requires that gasoline be mixed into the fuel to thin it out.

What does that have to do with water diesel emulsions? I'm getting kind of tire of people responding to my posts without even taking more than half a second to read it or click the links and just veering off onto some random knowledge they have of one or two of the words in in the sentence.

By the way when diesel was invented it was made of plant oil. I'm talking about mixing 20-25% water + emulsifing agents.

 

[Naicamine]

Nothing whatsoever. This is a thread about fuel saving. I posted about saving fuel costs.

If you want to know my opinion on water in diesel fuel, it sounds like your going to get watered down diesel fuel, unless there is something I'm missing. What does adding emulsifying agents or whatever do to the cost?

 

[turbo]

Naicamine and TR345, when you make claims about efficiency gains from fuel additives, etc, please include supportive links from reputable sources. This could have been a pretty good thread, but it is degenerating into apocryphal babble, and that is no way to make progress on such a laudable goal.

 

[TR345]

I don't know, read the links. You save a lot of diesel because you use 25% or so less, and you supposedly get better fuel economy. The emulsifier makes water able to mix with diesel because normally it doesn't.

 

[engineroom]

With respect to fuel saving driving technique and the size of the vechicle are the keys.

If buying a vechicle today I would recommend a turbo diesel being the most fuel efficent & cost effective option available. There are turbo diesel cars coming from VW in Europe that do 60 mpg under normal driving conditions.

Long term I think that the type of cars we will buy will be intercooled turbo diesel Hyprids that run on vegetable oils. Excess of 100 mpg is easily feasiable.

I don't think electic cars will eventuate due to the need to build so many power stations and the recharge time.

 

[TR345]

Naicamine and TR345, when you make claims about efficiency gains from fuel additives, etc, please include supportive links from reputable sources. This could have been a pretty good thread, but it is degenerating into apocryphal babble, and that is no way to make progress on such a laudable goal.

"There are numerous benefits to adding water to diesel. Water vaporization increases fuel dispersion in the form of smaller droplets and the contact surface between fuel and air is increased. As a result, combustion is more efficient; combustion temperature peaks are lowered, thereby reducing NOx; and PM formation is reduced."

"Tests with a heavy-duty (30-ton) dump truck used two emulsified blends: 65 to 35 wt% diesel to water and 70 to 30 wt% diesel to water. Test results showed significant drops in emissions and an increase in fuel efficiency of 10-15%."

I think the main consideration though is the huge amount of pollution reduction and greenhouse gas emission.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/kanagawa_univer.html

I guess I am not 100% sure this specific site is reputable, but if you do a google search on water/diesel emulsion fuel, then you get lots of various things to look through including corporate sites like BP, chevron, and government sites from all over the world including the u.s.

It is hard fro me to determine the efficiency though because there are a whole lot of different patents out there and they are all a little different.

By the way, I don't see how you are putting me in the same boat as Naicamin, I don't recall any posts by him about fuel additives. Another case of skimming catching maybe one word and responding.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

oh yeh?

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Did we talk about the Germans using water injection in their piston driven airplane engines? Is that close to being almost a similar anology of the same thing?

 

[Integral]

Totally different from the add something to your fuel concept.

My car has a "computer" which displays the current rate of fuel consumption or the average rate, I keep pretty close watch on my average gas mileage, it has been running something on the order of 20 mpg (Chrysler 300 with a 3.8l V6). I have verified this to be a little optimistic compared to my computations at fill up time, my actual mileage is just a bit less then what the computer shows. Recently I noted that my average mileage had dropped to the 18-19 mpg range. I checked my tire pressure and sure enough at least 1 tire was several pounds below the 35psi recommended to me by the guy at the tire shop. On a lark I decided to run at a slightly higher pressure, 36psi.

After airing up the tires I filled up with gas and reset the computer. It soon became evident that my gas mileage was significantly improved, so far, and I am still in the first half of the tank I appear to be getting nearly 23mpg. While this my not be Earth shaking I remain amazed at the difference made by a 1psi change in tire pressure.

Moral: If you want to maintain your gas mileage keep a close watch on your tire pressure.

 

[brewnog]

Did we talk about the Germans using water injection in their piston driven airplane engines? Is that close to being almost a similar anology of the same thing?

Not very similar, no. Water injection in a reciprocating engine was primarily used to cool the charge, thus widening the detonation margin and allowing higher compression ratios to be used. Evaporation of water droplets in the inlet tract also increases charge density (as with any aftercooler), so you get more air into the cylinders, and lower peak cylinder temperatures (so NOx emissions are reduced). Superheating of the water during the combustion stroke raises the IMEP and provides greater torque; and the lower combustion temperatures reject less heat to the coolant.

Historically, this principle was used in WWII bombers to assist with fully-laden takeoffs. Nowadays, we have pretty good intercoolers which do the job admirably (with the exception of the steam bit); and water injection tends to be restricted to specialist engines (dragsters, street racing, racing aircraft etc).

Though peak power can be increased by water injection, effects on fuel economy have been shown to be negligible.

 

[FredGarvin]

I honestly can not see how adding water to fuel can do anything but reduce the deliverable power to the engine. The main thing that water is going to do is draw off some of the energy to vaporize. That energy is unusable for the cycle and goes right out the tail pipe. That exact reason is why we (in aerospace engines) have to have a higher heating value and a lower heating value when dealing with engine performance calculations. I can see how it can help emissions, especially in the realm of NOx formation.

 

[brewnog]

I honestly can not see how adding water to fuel can do anything but reduce the deliverable power to the engine. The main thing that water is going to do is draw off some of the energy to vaporize. That energy is unusable for the cycle and goes right out the tail pipe. That exact reason is why we (in aerospace engines) have to have a higher heating value and a lower heating value when dealing with engine performance calculations. I can see how it can help emissions, especially in the realm of NOx formation.

Indeed. Water, when added to fuel, just serves to dilute combustible product, decreasing the calorific value of the mixture in question. (Water, when used in a Diesel engine, will also quickly damage fuel injection equipment.)

 

[mtworkowski@o]

Was it true that during WWll, Germany had planes that used water injection? I'm thinking high compression, low octane and water as a means of stopping preignition. That's not the story I heard, but you seem to think that any water is bad.

 

[brewnog]

Was it true that during WWll, Germany had planes that used water injection? I'm thinking high compression, low octane and water as a means of stopping preignition. That's not the story I heard, but you seem to think that any water is bad.

Read my post (#89) again.

Yes, water injection was used in WWII.
Yes, it can be very successful for increasing charge density, lowering PCT, decreasing NOx, and widening detonation margin.
No, it's not the same as adding water directly to the fuel.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

I'm pretty sure I know that water injection is not the same as mixing water in the fuel. Still, what was the reason for injection and what exactly is charge density? Thanks

 

[FredGarvin]

You're right. They are not the same thing. The water droplets added to the inlet air evaporate and thus draw the heat of evaporation from the inlet air, cooling it and increasing its density.

 

[brewnog]

I'm pretty sure I know that water injection is not the same as mixing water in the fuel. Still, what was the reason for injection and what exactly is charge density? Thanks

Injection gives a fine mist of water which evaporates in the inlet tract. Water takes energy (heat) from its surroundings to evaporate, so the temperature drops. As temperature drops, volume decreases, so more mass per litre of air is admitted into the cylinder. More fuel can then be used, so more power is developed when the fuel is burnt.

 

[brewnog]

You're right. They are not the same thing. The water droplets added to the inlet air evaporate and thus draw the heat of evaporation from the inlet air, cooling it and increasing its density.

What he said.

 

[mtworkowski@o]

yep, I totally missed that post. thanks

 

[FredGarvin]

What he said.

No. What HE said.

 

[starkind]

pulse driving

I read about a driving technique called pulse driving reported to get more than 100 mpg in an unmodified factory model car. The idea is to accellerate to highway speed, then turn off the engine and coast down to about 30 mph. Restart the engine and repeat. Any physical truth to this?

Here's a link...

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm