Fuel Warmer and Fuel magnet?

[tasdrouille]

Well, a hotter mixture makes for a better combustion. So heating the fuel makes sense. But isn't the fuel already normally heated at the fuel rail on modern engines?

Yup, it would be very interesting to have an HC measure taken pre CAT.

[JJW]

It's amazing how much that's old becomes new again. I had a 69 VW Beetle that had a "fuel warmer" by OEM design. Actually, what it was was a pipe from the exhaust manifold that passed underneath the carburettor. It seems these engines had a tendency to ice up the carb from the Joule-Thompson effect (I just had to throw that in, I've been dying to use it in conversation.), so somewhere in the late 60s VW started warming the carbs to prevent the icing. Apparently, this also had the effect of reducing the efficiency somewhat. Whether it was a wives tale or not, several of my VWs had this pipe cut out and brassed or welded up to apparently try to eek the mileage or power back up. My 69 modded in such a way would freeze up while idling if the dew point was low.

[Joseph Davis]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

Yup, it would be very interesting to have an HC measure taken pre CAT.

Up until '00/01 the average Civic or Integra would pass 4-gas emissions for those model years with no cat, if the engine was sub-100K and in good repair. A number of the Cali guys in the early days of the turbocharging craze (~97) would have to go through dyno/4-gas emissions tests, the precursor to the ubiquitous scantool emissions testing that is standard in most locations now, and would pass with flying colors.

Cats have been regarded for years as a harmful device that restricts engine power & efficiency, encourages engineering sloth as the cat will clean up any emissions resulting from design error, and spews heavy metal particulate into the environment. I feel the same way about detergent additives in gasoline, they form toxic components that are not tested for and are harmful.

[zjrog]

Not sure how much the cat burns or passes. I've known some folks to pass emissions in California with no cat (well, a hollowed out one...), but then these were on well maintained and tuned late 80s and early 90 Chrysler turbos.

[suspectnumber961]

Magnetic treatment increases efficiency...

http://dl.gmseenet.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/745/Env07%20-%20Govindasa\
my%20-%20Reduction%20of.pdf?sequence=1


http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:l4k12ladcIQJ:www.ekom.si/documents/Labo\
ratoryforPolymerChemistryandTechnology.pdf+Magneti c+treatment+of+fuel+Ljubljana&\
hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFy_YkDcKVKa6aLOhq4x19hPmqlQg


In the working principles of their publication Govindasamy et al.1 describe the
physical priciple of magnetic
treatment of fuel. Magnetic fuel treatment works on the principle of magnetic
field interaction with
hydrocarbon molecules of fuel and oxygen molecules Liquid fuel is a mixture of
organic chemical
compounds consisted predominantly of carbon and hydrogen atoms - hydrocarbons.
Due to various physical
attraction forces, they form densely packed structures called pseudo compounds
which can further organize
into clusters or associations. These structures are relatively stable and during
air/fuel mixing process,
oxygen atoms can not penetrate into their interior. The access of appropriate
quantities of oxygen to the
interior of these molecular groups (associations) is thus hindered. This results
in the incomplete combustion
of fuel in the interior of such associations and causes the formation of carbon
particles and carbon monoxide
as well as increased quantities of hydrocarbons emitted into the environment.

In the scientific literature1 it is stated that hydrocarbon molecules treated
with a high magnetic field tend to
de-cluster forming smaller associates with higher specific surface for the
reaction with oxygen leading to
improved combustion. In accordance with van der Waals' discovery of a weak
clustering force, there is a
strong binding of hydrocarbons with oxygen in such magnetized fuel, which
ensures optimal burning of the
mixture in the engine chamber. The consequence of treating fuel with a high
magnetic field is improved
combustion of fuel and consequently increased engine power as well as reduced
fuel consumption. An
additional consequence of improved fuel combustion is reduced emissions of
carbon particles, carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons.

Results reported by Govindasamy et al.1 show that treatment of two stroke engine
fuel with a magnetic field
of 9000 gauss increases the indicated mean effective pressure and break mean
effective pressure of the
engine threfore increasing also the mechanical power and break thermal
efficiency (BTE). Authors1
2
conclude that magnetic energizing (magnetic field - 9000 gauss) increase the
peak pressure by 13.5%
improve break thermal efficiency by 3.2% and also reduce the exhaust emmissions
of: CO by 13.3% and
HC (hydrocarbons) by 22.1%.
Tretyakov et al.2 studied the effectiveness of magnetic field treatment on
electrical properties such as:
permittivity (), dielectric loss angle (tg ) and ohmic
resistance in relation with magnetic field strength and
temperature on air fuel T-7. Results showed that magnetic field strength (H) of
320 kA/m increased the
maximal tg  from 4 for nontreated fuel at app. 80 C to the value
of 11 at app. 100 C. Magnetic treatment
(magnetic field stzrengths H = 320 and 480 kA/m) also reduced the ohmic
resistance of the fuel while no
effect was observed on the permittivity of fuel. These changes in dielectric
properties of fuel are an
indication of the effects of magnetic treatment on the physical and chemical
properties of hydrocarbons.
Kronenberg3 showed experimental evidence about the effect of magnetic field
water treatment on the
properties of water and the solutes such as CaCO3. Magnetic field causes the
formation of microcrystals
which form a stale suspension and do not precipitate out of the water. It also
reduces the surface tension and
viscosity of water by up to 2%.

CONCLUSION

There is experimental evidence about the influence of magnetic field on
physicochemical properties of
water and hydrocarbons (automotive and air fuel) as well as direct experimental
evidence about the
improvment of the combustion reaction and about the increase of the engine power
as well as about the
reduction of exhaust emissions. On the basis of reported experimental results we
conclude that improved
fuel combustion, increased engine power and reduced fuel consumption as well as
reduced emissions of
pollutants as a consequence of magnetic fuel treatment are feasible.
Report prepared by:
Dr. Alojz Anžlovar

[tangomar]

Completely agree!

But don't use "el cheapo" magnets that you can find on amazon...
Get disk drive magnets on e-bay and put them orthogonally to the fuel flow.

Regarding the fuel heater, same story here. It isn't about increasing the temperature of the mix... but it is about trying to vaporize fuel before the pistons. Fuel isn't a gas but liquid. So by the time some of its components vaporize and start burning they get expelled and they burn with no useful work inside the piston.

Some get recirculated (EGR), some goes in your oil making it black.

Fuel magnets + gas heater + fuel pre-conditioning + hydrogen injection = better gas burning inside the piston (= HAFC).

If you push this to the extreme you get the GEET.

But nothing is worth doing it if you have an 02-feedback.

[aerohead]

I can only speak to half your query.
Gasoline is paramagnetic and cannot in any way be influenced by a magnetic field.This is true of all hydrocarbon fuels.
I will hazard a guess with respect to fuel warming.Warmer fuel would require less heating to achieve its boiling point ( vaporization ),it would carry more energy into the combustion chamber and enhance the activation energy of the entire makeup of all the various hydrocarbon chains present.
The 200-mpg Pogue and Fish carburetors were premised on full vaporization of the fuel for their fantastic performance,so I believe this is the angle being played here.Just a guess.
The Brown Carburetor Co.,Inc. offered a reproduction of the Fish carburetor(out of production in 1959) in the early 1980s.They only claimed a 20% mpg increase.

[Christ]

Phil -

I've not ventured to actually see or attempt to reproduce/test any of the patents, but could [at least some of] the gains claimed in those designs been more a matter of airflow profiling? Just as [in high air velocity applications] a single large barrel is far more efficient than multiple smaller barrels, I believe that airflow through the older carbs was a very neglected feature of efficiency gains, and these people may have looked at that as well as vaporization and other enhancements to be able to make those claims, with even an ounce of legitimacy.

I guess I'm asking if it was really snake oil they were cooking up, or if someone just didn't read the recipe correctly?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Christ

Phil -

I've not ventured to actually see or attempt to reproduce/test any of the patents, but could [at least some of] the gains claimed in those designs been more a matter of airflow profiling? Just as [in high air velocity applications] a single large barrel is far more efficient than multiple smaller barrels, I believe that airflow through the older carbs was a very neglected feature of efficiency gains, and these people may have looked at that as well as vaporization and other enhancements to be able to make those claims, with even an ounce of legitimacy.

I guess I'm asking if it was really snake oil they were cooking up, or if someone just didn't read the recipe correctly?

I've got the book on the 200-mpg carbs.They don't even appear to understand volumetric efficiency,they're going strictly off gains from vaporization.
And some of the designs "work",here;s the rub.
You take your Mercury station wagon with V-8 power,push the car up to 35-mph,start the engine and engage the clutch and you can get 200-mpg.
You can't go below 35-mph and you can't go faster.
There is no "throttling" allowed.
I gotta go,shop closing,will catch up.

[Christ]

So they have throttles, but the claims don't allow for the use of them, if I read that correctly?

So that would mean it's horribly inefficient when used except in a very small range of operation, correct?