Snake oil or real deal? Phoenix Fuel Converter

[undeRGRound]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

No, it does not.

I said COULD answer, not does answer. I don't have a dog in the fight.

This device is safe enough as a fuel heater, if we disregard that anything that adds to the complexity of the fuel system can cause it to fail.

The phoenix or the one I listed?

Again, there is nothing to catalyse.
Copper pellets would not do anything, and that is a good thing.

I listed copper as a possible catalyst, because I have seen it used in several patents that "CLAIM" hyper-mileage setups. This is a common thread, a copper catalyst, heat reclaiming, fuel vapor. If copper does nothing, then a simpler fuel heater would definitely be better!

But I doubt I could win this battle of words with scientific arguments, when there is such strong evidence available like guys who walk into shops and say things.

Why the attitude? I like science much more than most people, could not get enough of it! I have the mind for it, I am not set in my opinions, and ready willing and able to LEARN! Start using some Science, instead of presenting everything as opinion, and we can move forward! Note above, where I am agreeable to your premise that copper does not act as a catalyst... I'd like to see some actual proof, but your strong opinion seems like it may have some backing. I'd just like to see it!

[maxc]

Patent US20130269318 - Coolant-to-catalyst fuel modification method and apparatus - Google Patents

[ChazInMT]

Part of the Patent.

Catalytic elements of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) are effective. These may be overlapped in any order (e.g., Cu—Ni—Zn, Cu—Zn—Ni, Ni—Zn—Cu, etc.). In preferred embodiment, additional screens of gold (Au) and palladium (Pd) increase effectiveness. The Au catalyst is typically 24-karat Au plated on Ni; the Pd catalyst is a plated Cu screen. The additional screens may also be placed in any order, but Pd adjacent to the coolant tube may impede effective welding. Optional catalyst elements include iridium (Ir) and platinum (Pt), or a platiniridium alloy. Electrical excitation of the catalyst improves efficiency at a lower temperature.

Gold? um....a catalyst? Better show me the chemical formulas of Gold reacting with carbon or hydrogen as a catalyst at temperatures less than 6,000°F.

Read THIS for how a catalytic converter works. Then if you want to do the same type explanation for how this tube turd works, I'd sure appreciate it.

Otherwise, keep in mind, you can patent anything, it is NOT required to actually work to be patentable. People at the patent office are not equipped to decipher BS when it is presented. So a patent is far from the validation of operation of a device.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by maxc

Patent US20130269318 - Coolant-to-catalyst fuel modification method and apparatus - Google Patents

Even though a patent does not prove a device works as claimed, it does give insight to the design thoughts.

As such, the link to the patent application gives enough information to delve into researching the device.

My greatest concern is not so much that the device can't work. It is more appropriate to question weather it works as claimed. To see the 10-15% benefits they are claiming would indicate a large portion of the fuel is being catalytically depolymerized into shorter chain components. I question the time required to do this effectively. The catalyst listed could certainly provide the reaction. But, the 100 deg C temperature would necessitate long residence times to see a measurable catalytic effect on the fuel. Certainly, current catalytic research with nano-particle agglomeration with specific geometries to provide crucial molecular transformations is advancing rapidly. But this does not side step the Arrhenius Rate equations need for heat unless you are using enzymatic processes that can perform at near room temperatures - but this patent is most certainly NOT of this type.

The only way I can see this device working is if they have a specific target molecule as an output to the combustion chamber. Exceedingly small quantities of some hydrocarbon compounds have known and beneficial effects on combustion. However, this device does not look like it has a boutique catalytic makeup to do this. And, the engine would have to be tuned to take advantage of the fuel change. A simple bolt on affair would have little to no benefit.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by undeRGRound

Why the attitude? I like science much more than most people, could not get enough of it! I have the mind for it, I am not set in my opinions, and ready willing and able to LEARN! Start using some Science, instead of presenting everything as opinion, and we can move forward! Note above, where I am agreeable to your premise that copper does not act as a catalyst... I'd like to see some actual proof, but your strong opinion seems like it may have some backing. I'd just like to see it!

Yes, where's the proof?
I will not give proof, as that would just repeat what Xist and others have posted.
And why the attitude? I guess I am unreasonable, so I refrain from commenting.
Sorry I did annoy you with my strong opinions.
Good luck with the sales.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Geez O Pete's, this always gets me here. How is it some people feel that, "Yeah, Sure, It all burns up......but we can super improve the "Way" it burns man."

So like the already complete combustion process can be "Improved" to get more energy out.

To me, there is only so much energy stored in the fuel in the form of chemical potential energy, once you've burned 99.999% of it, there is no more.

Now don't get me wrong, there are still a Gazillion ways to improve getting more of the energy we release during combustion converted into mechanical energy to push our cars down the road, I'd be an idiot of galactic proportions to suggest that there isn't a ton of room for improvement here. I'm only speaking of the efficiency of combusting all the fuel itself in the cylinder.

Seems to me that a lot of the tweeks and lessons learned over 136 years of gasoline engine development have had the ultimate end being complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinder. But now there are scammers trying to gain an edge by saying that the complete combustion itself is not good enough, and they know how to make it better.


Yeah.
Sure.
OK.

Individuals consistently mix up the ideas of combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency. They are not the same thing.

Yes, modern gasoline engines do burn 98% of the fuel introduced into them (combustion efficiency), but only roughly 30% is turned into motive energy (thermal efficiency). Modifications to combustion profiles, such as the over expanding Atkinson engines, return 35-38% thermal efficiency. Re-using some of the lost thermal energy (turbocharging) can gain a few percent more.

This device cannot improve combustion efficiency to any great degree (2% left to improve upon). It can only improve thermal efficiency. However, that usually means a complete systems approach that a bolt on device doesn't offer.

[undeRGRound]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Good luck with the sales.

I am not selling anything


I don't think this unit is going to do much, neither Phoenix or Cal-Cat.
I may try a home built fuel heater, with or without my planned copper pellet "catalyst" setup. Nothing for sale from me! I also say:
"don't buy these heater/catalyst units being discussed here!"

DIY is best, that way you can understand how and maybe why it works, and be able to troubleshoot it when it stops working.