Fuel Warmer and Fuel magnet?
 

Okay so i have been doing some research and i was just wondering if some of you could clarify HOW a fuel warmer does it. All i see when i see pictures of them is a brass body with an inlet and an outlet.... is there something special that im missing.

And the fuel magnets. I know what they are and how they do it but how can i go about getting them. Are they available @ a hobby warehouse, or home depot?

Before you go throwing money at magnets, I would suggest giving this a read: http://fuelsaving.info/magnets.htm

Thank you for that. How about a fuel warmer. Some i have seen have two probes comming out of them like for an after market adjustable radiator fan switch. Can someone tell me how they work?

I am just wondering because my fuel lines come in @ the back of the motor and are completely hardlined but i dont mind switching them to a softline if a fuel heater actually works.

From what I've read about fuel warming on here and other sites, it depends on the car. The idea is that warm fuel atomizes better which provides a better burn, likely being done in conjunction with a warm air intake. Some of the sites I looked at I would question their highly dramatic results, but the theory probably has a good amount of merit.

For the DIY route I'd say run some good quality line around/near the exhaust manifold to heat it up, just be sure to keep it somewhat easily reversible so you can give it a good A-B-A test and use something that can easily withstand the temps.

So if I took some 3/8" steel fuel line and routed it along the back-side of my exhaust manifold (not too close) and then back to the TB, this would in effect become a "Fuel Warmer"?

Sounds like an experiment to try.

Here's some ideas for you to heat it. Not so volitale as going around the exhaust. I think the temp to shoot for is about 170-190 degrees.

why not just run a "T" off the radiator hose and have your ridged fuel line go through it? it wouldn't ever get above 220F then so I don't think you would get vapor lock or other vapor related problems and wouldn't have to worry about melting anything.

If a fuel heater increases atomization as some claim, I would suggest getting your car smogged to get a sense of the amount of unburnt hydrocarbons produced. Modern engines are generally very efficient at burning all the fuel available, but very inefficient at extracting useful energy. If you are worried about unburnt fuel, a warm air intake should be more likely to increase atomization than a fuel warmer.

Unless you live in an extremely frigid environment, I would place the idea fuel warmers in the junk bin.

- LostCause

Would you not want to cool the air and heat the fuel to make for a more lean burn?

I'd love to believe this. After the CAT we know exhaust is fairly clean. But, I wonder how much fuel actually gets to the CAT. Anyone have any info? Anyone ever have a 5 gas analysis without a CAT?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

1/2
 

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.

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?

book
 

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.

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?

one thing to point out, there will be a point where heated fuel might work against you

with the new 4 stroke motocross bikes, the ambient heat from the engine can heaet the gas in the plastic and carb that it boils in the carb, and theyve had significant problems with the engines failing to run right after the fuel begins to boil. Bikes have been known to misfire and even flame out on decel. I doubt the fuel temps in the carb are much over 200 degrees F.

*Im just guessing, but id say to a point, warmer fuel might get better mileage, but there would be a point where it would start to work backwards without a significant redsign of the fuel system. Most fuel systems are designed to work with a liquid fuel, and to take advanage of heated fuel, they would need to work well with a fuel in gas form.

throttles
 

I really need to get the book ( you'd get a kick out of some of the drawings ) before I can best represent them (there are 12 0f them ).
Throttles are horrible! They have a Cd 1.11,not a pretty picture for passing fluids,gases,etc..
The Diesel has a low speed advantage over S.I.engines due to it's lack of throttle,which is lost around 80-mph,when S.I.-engined cars are operating closer to WOT,with higher volumetric efficiency of the open hole.
My CRX has a 3-BBL carb and at reasonable highway speed is at WOT for that 2nd "cruise" barrel which probably gives it some advantage over a partially-cracked large throttle-body of a EFI engine operating at high drag angle of attack.

This is why I like gated throttle designs. There is no "angle of attack" scenario, because the flaps open apart in the middle, leaving an unrestricted path for airflow. I believe there is an aftermarket carb company also working on a throttle body which opens radially, like doors in sci-fi movies, to allow for unrestricted airflow, as well.

Of course, out of all of them, I still prefer GDI with no throttle plate.

Christ -

Oooooooooh, neato :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sAnimation.gif

I guess the only concern would be the KISS factor, or the alien universe hordes.

Who makes gated throttles?

CarloSW2

Carlos -

Precisely, but imagine that it's tapered fore and aft of the opening to allow for a smooth inflow and outflow from the throttle plate. The design is novel, but way too complex, IMO, and we'll probably never see it. I can't even find a patent for it, but I saw drawings for it online somewhere a while back.

The gated carb design, some race carb manufacturer makes it, I'm currently googling my arse off trying to find it.

They are called Slide Valve throttle bodies, been around for quite a while.

Some Methanol sprint cars, F1 cars and some Euro dirt cars run them.

Lucas made one of them.

They are very very effective in situations where you want throttle response.

Dave

No, they aren't [that type of carb]. Still can't find an example of it, though, and I don't even have the DVD of the last show I saw them on... (part of power block from back in the day).

The throttle valve is still actuated the same way, with a cam, except it's a half-circle port with a half circle throttle blade that tucks into the port at WOT. Air doesn't split to go around it, because there is only one opening in the throttle port. It has a much lower Cd than traditional throttle assemblies because of this, but a larger throttle cam is required for more precise throttle response, because if the same size cam is used, you're only able to get half the airflow that you'd be getting at a given RPM/throttle setting with a normal carb.

The other design that I thought was better even than that one, is a square throttle bore with two gates that open apart from each other in the center. It uses a single throttle cam and a pair of cogs. The throttle cam controls one plate, the cog opens the other plate to the same angle at the same time, but they both open the same port, and close together when the throttle is closed.

I believe there is merit to fuel heaters especially in the cold tundra up here. Only about 30% of a tank of gasoline is actually gasoline, the rest is additives and heavier compounds (boy the crap gas we have) As such although most of the fuel burns to some extent only maybe half burns completely and clean the rest has to finish burning once it exits in the cat. If you have ever taken a CAT off a car you will know it, smells like raw gas out the tailpipe.

Or go to harbor freight and buy one when they are on clearance for $2-$5. If you get tired of the thing it works well as fridge magnet and has a cool looking lable on it. Speaking of which you could just put a cow magnet, fridge magnet or whatever on there if it makes you happy.

There have been a couple sucessfull (as tested by the EPA) fuel magnet/dissimilar metal jobbers like the vitalizer. (Before flaming read the papers on the thing, it did very slightly improve FE but not enough to cover its cost)

The fuel economy improvement was a whopping 1% meaning you better not spend very much on a magnet.

rmay635703 -

I wish I had the reference, but I remember reading that in lab settings it works, but only *if* you have a huge magnet, maybe MRI style. I think that's the "kernel of truth" to the fuel magnet thing.

CarloSW2

use this babies: 1 lot of 10 neodymium strong hdd magnet d6 d9 - eBay (item 310178720789 end time Nov-30-09 21:15:11 PST)

iris
 

The iris would suffer the vena contrata entry loss as there is absolutely no entry radius of curvature.Very high drag.

throttles
 

I've got Wallace's book in front of me.
All the carbs either have a standard butterfly throttle,or their system is in series with,and ahead of the standard carb,with its throttle.
Here's a very important consideration.One gallon of gasoline,at stoichiometric ratio has the energy of 10 sticks of trinitrotuluene(TNT).
One backfire through the carburetor could conceivably explode the front end off the car.

Nice little tidbit, there... the TNT thing. Good thing I've never had that happen...

According to This Article, A gallon of gasoline (6.6 pounds) has the energy of 99 pounds of TNT.:eek:

"One backfire through the carburetor could conceivably explode the front end off the car."

Do you also feel that natural-gas-fueled domestic stoves are similarly likely to explode home kitchens? After all, as you must know if you've ever bothered to study how these external gasification systems are configured, they generate pure gaseous fuel which is NOT premixed with oxygen any more than Compressed Natural Gas or externally-vaporized Liquid Petroleum gas fueling systems are premixed with oxygen.

Some early exhaust-heated gasoline vaporizing promoters made silly unsupportable claims. But their silliness does not justify piling on with unfair and unsupportable suppostional attacks.

Partial fumigation with either Compressed Natural Gas feeds or LPG gas feeds quickens post-ignition combustion development and quickens combustion completion. The faster flame propagation speed enabled by partial fumigation generates higher average piston pressure through the decompression power stroke even when total fuel BTUs are the same. So why would partial fumigation with vaporized gasoline not also quicken combustion? Liquid gasoline droplets CAN NOT burn. Only after their delayed evaporation and subsequent mixing with oxygen can fuel delivered as liquid droplets burn and start developing piston pressure. These exhaust-system-heated vaporization systems eliminate those droplet phase-changing delays within combustion chambers.

It's way too easy to take pot shots at this design strategy based on some obviously silly claims. It would not surprise me at all if well-configured exhaust-heated gasoline-to-gas generators can improve typical highway cruising MPG compared to typical fuel injection systems. Only if actual testing by at least a dozen well-experienced fueling system innovators produces no examples where these systems fail to improve MPG can justify dismissing these systems.

Let them stand or fall on their own merits. Piling on dismissive comments based on poorly-considered speculations and decades-old silly advertising exaggerations is also unjustified.

Just my opinions.
John

Your opinion and $1 might get you a cup of coffee.

"One gallon of gasoline,at stoichiometric ratio has the energy of 10 sticks of trinitrotuluene(TNT)."

Let's consider a typical modern vehicle which burns liquid-phase-changed gaseous fuel at 30 MPG while touring at 60 mph. Each hour it burns 2 gallons to go those 60 miles. One gallon is 128 fluid ounces. During each hour it burns 256 fluid ounces. Or we can convert that to usage per minute as 256/60 = 4.27 fluid ounces per minute. Exhaust-heated gasoline vaporizers flash-boil only as much liquid fuel as it is needed as it about to be inducted. Many of those system only provide about 50% of the engine's fuel and fuel the rest with liquid-injection systems. So at any specific moment, only a tiny vaporized gasoline volume is present in the generator. Yet even that volume is NOT yet mixed with oxygen from the air. You could fire a spark plug all day inside that 100%-fuel 0%-oxygen environment trying to get it to burn. But your attempt would fail just as a child trying to blow up a city by trying to send a flame down their parent's home gas stove feed pipe can't produce a flame front. Both would fail because there's no significant free oxygen within either of those fuel supplies.

Why write these irrelevant "boogeyman" stories? Who do you think would be foolish enough to think you are describing relevant dangers? It seems a little insulting to other readers. Why do you think other site readers would be so poorly informed as to think this comparison with TNT should be considered?

If you only intended it as a joke, I apologize for failing to understand that intent.
John

What are you going on about? :confused:

But what if you have a carbed engine? I wouldn't consider them "very efficient"