New Fuel Economy Information site

[mpgmike]

This is really starting to get "fun"! Ecky, I really appreciate you contributing. I wanted to test the validity of my presentation (I already know the science and results from the 30+ years of testing at both a personal and professional level), and you are helping me find the weak points. Working backwards, the 80k Gauss rating was advertised by the manufacturer, Dutchman Enterprises. The Magnetic Heat Exchanger was part of the Dutchman Hydro Assist Fuel Cell kit marketed in 2007-8. We acquired about 100 of the kits after the FTC shut them down. The MHE was patented by Dennis Lee (a name you probably recognize), and he claims 80k Gauss. I don't make them, when the inventory runs out, I have to get details from Dennis and/or pay out patent royalties if I want to make more.

As for how science views the "closed loop", Quantum Physics acknowledges the open loop reality, but most of the other fields of science ignore it.

You made a comment about having time to test products and theories, I've had 3 decades to play. I still work the daily grind. But over the past 31 years I've taken the time and finances to test more crap than I can even remember. Occasionally something "ACTUALLY WORKS!!". You better believe I remember the good stuff! There are a few select technologies that have utterly blown my mind! Furthermore, being involved with OEM level engineering, I've had the opportunity to test ideas with equipment very few experimenters have access to.

You ran some math on unburned hydrocarbons (2022 Honda Civic). I will challenge you the same way I challenged Josh Millard and his under-qualified "expert", professor William P. Halperin, PhD, head of the physics department at some university (ambiguity used as a dis) in the FTC vs Dutchman Enterprises case in US Federal Court (where I earned the official title Fuel Economy Expert). The US EPA concludes that the modern vehicle is capable of burning >99% of the fuel admitted into the engine (your Honda example). However, the engine itself is only around 18% to 22% efficient. The catalytic converter does an excellent job of masking the engine's inefficiencies, thus burning >99% of the fuel.

If you look only at what comes out the tail pipe and think that those emissions represent engine efficiency, you are NOT giving the catalytic converter consideration. In other words, your assumptions are not based on ENGINE EFFICIENCY, but VEHICLE efficiency. I highly encourage you to look at the Combustion Efficiency page I put together (if you haven't already) to get a better idea of what transpires in the cylinder when the spark plug fires. With that knowledge, you have clues on how to make things better.

I work in electronics and microprocessors. If a programmer codes a "1" where there should be a "0", it doesn't work. If 9/10 programmers use a 1 instead of a 0, the majority claim the technology doesn't work. But in reality, it works every time it's done correctly -- use the damn 1 not the 0!

Ecky, thanks again! Please don't stop. In fact, to others are watching the action from the comfort of their own home, please chime in. I need to know if I'm presenting what I KNOW properly. If my presentation is weak, I want to know. More importantly, I want to encourage experimenters to try what I suggest. Get the gains. Spread the work. The world needs it, we need it. May I say, Mother Earth needs it. Sadly, as much as I am a proponent of EVs, I don't think they have a shot in hell of delivering what the politicians are expecting any time soon. There are too many infrastructural inadequacies. This leaves the ICE to do the job for at least the next 2-3 decades.

[Ecky]

It's nitpicky, but the first thing I'd recommend is researching a realistic magnetic field strength for your device. If you're simply repeating what the manufacturer claimed, know that the number you were given is so far out of bounds that you've undoubtedly been lied to. Without knowing the size of the magnets exactly, I'd wager 1/100 (~800 gauss) is a realistic upper bound.

Regarding unburnt HC, vehicles haven't been tested for years without catalysts, so you have to go pretty far back to find unburned fuel figures. Here's one:

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/...y=9100EXLA.PDF


In 1972, the EPA tested the Honda Civic, which did not have a catalyst. The explicitly list the fuel economy (22mpg) and the measured unburnt fuel coming out of the engine, uncatalyzed - ~0.18 grams.

With 50 year old technology, that works out to 0.13% unburnt fuel - around a tenth of a percent. Or, in other words, combustion then was 99.87% complete.

Add to that, we're talking about a vehicle with a curb weight as low as 1300lbs, getting 22mpg. The equivalent offering 50 years later weighs 2.5x as much and burns 40% less fuel moving it around.

So, we can safely throw out unburnt fuel as a remote possibility. If this does in fact work (and none of it passes the sniff test), that's not how it works.

[mpgmike]

That makes my point perfectly! It isn't enough to simply burn the fuel, it really matters when it burns in the combustion cycle, and how quickly. Burning out the exhaust manifold contributes absolutely nothing towards making power at the wheels. However, the emissions analyzer will show that it got burned.

Engineers use the term Critical Crank Angle (CCA) to denote the optimal phase of crank angle where highest peak cylinder pressures do the most good; usually 17-18 degrees ATDC. With a slow burning charge, it takes more ignition timing advance to build pressures by CCA (which can have disastrous side effects). Faster flame propagation and oxidation rates allow more conservative ignition timing while still delivering the goods in time. Furthermore, a faster burn rate is more likely to oxidize more fuel within the combustion cycle than a slow burn. In other words, a faster burn is able to release more of the chemical energy within the "magic window" when the engine can convert it to usable kinetic energy.

So your observation that it is not an issue of unburned fuel is correct; it's an issue of when-burned fuel.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by mpgmike

That makes my point perfectly! It isn't enough to simply burn the fuel, it really matters when it burns in the combustion cycle, and how quickly. Burning out the exhaust manifold contributes absolutely nothing towards making power at the wheels. However, the emissions analyzer will show that it got burned.

Engineers use the term Critical Crank Angle (CCA) to denote the optimal phase of crank angle where highest peak cylinder pressures do the most good; usually 17-18 degrees ATDC. With a slow burning charge, it takes more ignition timing advance to build pressures by CCA (which can have disastrous side effects). Faster flame propagation and oxidation rates allow more conservative ignition timing while still delivering the goods in time. Furthermore, a faster burn rate is more likely to oxidize more fuel within the combustion cycle than a slow burn. In other words, a faster burn is able to release more of the chemical energy within the "magic window" when the engine can convert it to usable kinetic energy.

So your observation that it is not an issue of unburned fuel is correct; it's an issue of when-burned fuel.

What evidence do you have that any significant amount of fuel is still burning after it exits the exhaust manifold? It's under considerably higher pressure and temperature prior to this.

I'm quite familiar with CCA - I write ignition tables as a hobby. 17-18 degrees ATDC is for more conventional engine geometries - most engines made in the last 20 years have offset crankshafts, which alters that considerably. Add to that, modern combustion chambers are much faster than older designs. I believe the Insight's stock 3 cylinder would actually go into the negatives at times with ignition timing. When leaning the charge out to a 25:1 AFR, the additional ignition timing at part throttle was typically around 20-25 degrees extra advance due to the lower flame speed, but it was still only in the high 20's or maybe even 30 degrees, whereas many other older engines would be in the 40's, up to 50-60 degrees of ignition advance at low loads.

This is an engine that achieves near 40% thermal efficiency over a pretty broad powerband. Toyota's new "Dynamic Force" branded engines achieve similar ~40% thermal efficiency numbers, and these exist in just about all of their vehicles now, including the Tacoma, Corolla, etc. If you read through Toyota's publications, they explicitly state that while combustion is effectively "complete" even in older designs, where the low hanging fruit is, is in speeding it up, so more of the energy is released when the crank angle is favorable, and the pressure wave isn't chasing the piston down the bore.

Again, I'm calling misinformation here.

[mpgmike]

Again, I'm calling misinformation here.

I don't necessarily think so. We took the 2008 Hyundai Sonata (X-Prize car) to Roush and they gave us a 42 MPG HWY rating on a 30 MPG stickered car. Yet a few years later the stock Sonatas were getting around that. The newer Sonatas are relying on hybrid and GDI technology to achieve those numbers, whereas we relied 100% on speeding up the burn, then tuning for it. One of a few reasons newer vehicles get better fuel economy than their 10-20 year old counter parts is -- like you said -- better combustion chamber design.

Relying on my experience over lab reports, a hot exhaust manifold = fuel still burning after it's too late to contribute to power. George Arlington Moore did magic with old 1920's engines, and could get the exhaust temperatures down to just a couple hundred degrees. I have had major success with technologies that speed up the burn, including head port work, HHO, HO ignition, ozone, etc.

If you read through Toyota's publications, they explicitly state that while combustion is effectively "complete" even in older designs, where the low hanging fruit is, is in speeding it up, so more of the energy is released when the crank angle is favorable, and the pressure wave isn't chasing the piston down the bore.

What you said!

[mpgmike]

It's nitpicky, but the first thing I'd recommend is researching a realistic magnetic field strength for your device. If you're simply repeating what the manufacturer claimed, know that the number you were given is so far out of bounds that you've undoubtedly been lied to. Without knowing the size of the magnets exactly, I'd wager 1/100 (~800 gauss) is a realistic upper bound.

Just so you know, I sent an email to the one person most likely to have the answer, or at least tell me where Dutchman got them, with a part number. If I get the info, I'll certainly report back. In other words, I'm working on it.

[redpoint5]

You can only be right if you have a PhD or Masters. That's why everything AOC says is correct, and I cannot criticize her on matters of economics. Papers issued by institutions are the only way to tell if something has a factual basis or not.

[mpgmike]

By God I hope you're wrong! Personally, I have a high school diploma and 1 semester of proper college (no degree there). I learned the way folks learned for thousands of years -- and not at University!

However, if I say something and have no "credentials", it may not mean much to others. However, if a PhD makes the same claim, then folks tend to believe it; especially if backed by a recognized authority like a University. I have written many Reports that I had to pay a PhD to sign their name to so my work had credibility. Again, I hope you are being sarcastic, because if not, I'M MAY BE IN TROUBLE!!

[freebeard]

By God I hope you're wrong!
....
Again, I hope you are being sarcastic....

Wrong and sarcastic aren't the same thing.

I can criticize AOC on her pro-war stance. All I have is a B.S. in Humanities (&soc-sci) but I was in one once.

In a search for www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnetic+fuel+line bigclivedotcom bubbles to the top

How magnetic fuel savers work and how to make one.

[RealityRacer]

I am trying to understand your efforts for innovation and I am looking for answers. Can anyone here answer my questions? Surely, someone has some insight. You all seem very intelligent...
1. An ICE is 20% efficient and there is no room for improvement or the OEMs would do it. Can this be improved?
2. The ECU is programmed to adjust for max efficiency. Is there any evidence that the ECU is limited to a specified MPG?
3. Do you really think we want to be dependant on foreign oil? I mean, would there be any reason to keep us addicted to oil?
Please educate me- I am looking for answers.