Rotary Car Performance General Rotary Car and Engine modification discussions.

Ionized Fuel for better Efficiency and less prone to KABOOM?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-21-04, 12:21 AM
  #1  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
 
BATMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley Bay Area
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ionized Fuel for better Efficiency and less prone to KABOOM?

Some of u may have seen this.

But I was talking to an engineer at NASA that I meet at a party last week and he said that he feels that it works.

He went on to say that he installed a unit on his Chopper and noticed that MPG and pwer increased.

The theory was that fuel is positively charged.

THis pushes the molecules apart in the combubstion chamber, thus resulting in more surface area being exposed to air for a better combustion event.

It's basically a similar principle to holding 2 positive ends of a magnet and feeling them push apart.

Anyone guinea pig this?


http://www.cuttingedgefleet.com/purepower.html

http://www.naturesalternatives.com/energy/fuel.html
Old 04-21-04, 12:30 AM
  #2  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary

 
Fatman0203's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: MIA
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are those two you listed good or bad? In the sense are they proven? 2nd does the FD require Small or Large Version?
Old 04-21-04, 12:47 AM
  #3  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
 
BATMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley Bay Area
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would go for the large one since the fuel moves pretty fast through the lines.

We suck up gas like a V-8

At any rate the NASA engineer said that the "finer" the mist or better the atomization of the fuel the better the burn and less carbon builds up.

He noticed that when he changed the oil and later on opened up his engine to look inside.

Said that it was noticeble cleaner.

He said that carbon build up hurts the engine for these reasons:

- absorbs heat and gas (this can act as a detonation point)

- the physical presence of carbon "artificially increases the compression ratio of the combustion chamber since it's mass

- Carbon is abrasive

- On surfaces it acts like an insulator and reduce the effective heat transfer - cooling system effeciencies.

Last edited by BATMAN; 04-21-04 at 12:53 AM.
Old 04-21-04, 01:04 AM
  #4  
Rotary Freak
 
spoolin93r1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Salem, IN
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i've seen those on a lot of japanese road race cars, but have always wondered how safe they really are
Old 04-21-04, 01:11 AM
  #5  
Rotary Freak

 
c00lduke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
for only 85 bucks it would be worth it just for **** and giggles. Do the fuel lines run though this or what?
Old 04-21-04, 02:16 AM
  #6  
2/4 wheel cornering fiend

 
Kento's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 3,090
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Absolute, positively, completely SNAKE OIL.

It's actually kinda ironic. 15 years ago when I was roadracing motorcycles, a NASA engineer friend of mine (I'm not kidding) convinced me to try a fuel ionizer he developed for the same reasons. I figured the guy's a "rocket scientist", so I said what the hell, and tried it. Granted, a motorcycle's power-to-weight ratio is pretty large, so even a small power increase would be noticeable. I installed the thing midway through the season, and left it there until the end of the year. Result? A huge, monster, massive ZERO. I felt no power change whatsoever, and my lap times stayed the same. When we disassembled the top end after five races, there was the same carbon buildup that we'd usually see in the exhaust ports.

Yeah, in theory it makes a bit of sense. But in practical application, no. Do not waste your money.
Old 04-21-04, 02:26 AM
  #7  
Yellow Dragon is no more

 
spyfish007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Guys like this usually sell amway ..... sorry I just couldn't resist.
Old 04-21-04, 02:28 AM
  #8  
DETH TRP

iTrader: (7)
 
4CN Air's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So I should use this in conjunction WITH my snake oil?
Old 04-21-04, 02:34 AM
  #9  
accept no imitations™

 
neofreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: san francisco
Posts: 2,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by 4CN Air
So I should use this in conjunction WITH my snake oil?
top it off with some placebos too.
Old 04-21-04, 07:25 AM
  #10  
\m/

 
Rhode_Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you mean something like this batman?
Old 04-21-04, 07:58 AM
  #11  
Senior Member

 
gcthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Garden City, New York, USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The guy's chopper is probably has an archaic carb, which isn't a very good atomizer, and maybe this 'thing' actually helped. Later high pressure fuel injection systems do a very good job of atomizing fuel, and results are insignificant. Look for it on HSN.....
Old 04-21-04, 08:33 AM
  #12  
Ee / Cpe

 
XSTransAm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD / WVU
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
My engineering professor just showed me some interesting things yesterday that our college is currently working on. One of them is spark plugs that dont use the typical diod/arching mechinism and instead a plasma thingi (im not completely sure how it works) he said that the plugs when fired completely ignight the fuel resulting in a 20% increase of fuel economy, and more power too.

He said the problem with getting something like this to market is that spark plug manufacturers are stocked 5 years ahead and no one wants to let new technology like this get to market, he also that that these plugs are so good that there is no reason they couldent be molded in to the head of an engine.

we also have a crankless piston engine that puts out 280hp and weighs 230lbs and this weird engine that looks kinda like a big bowl and has sleevs that move as it spins... also light and powerful

behind all these cool toys he had a 12a rotary engine taken apart (which i loved to see) but he didnt say anything about it
Old 04-21-04, 10:11 AM
  #13  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
 
BATMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley Bay Area
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Rhode_Dog
you mean something like this batman?
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Old 04-21-04, 10:11 AM
  #14  
NASA geek

iTrader: (2)
 
RacerXtreme7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,215
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I work at NASA (LaRC aka: Langley Research Center) here in Virginia. I was involved in several tests using these fuel "ionizers". We tested a small block Chevy v8 (Carter carb), small 2 cycle Sachs single cylinder (83cc), our own 2 cylinder 2 cycle miniature helicopter engines ( opposed twin 40 cc). The small block was tested on a water brake dyno and the smaller engines were inertial dyno’ed using a flywheel type weight the motors had to spin up. A Chrysler v8 (355 cid?) and Ford inline 6 (300 cid) was also road tested in vehicles and our results for all test was ZERO. NO improved power, NO improved economy, NO difference in emissions. We used 5 versions of the same "ionizers". We used standard pump gas and tried different grades and octane ratings. The single cylinder Sachs test was standard pump (2 stroke oil added) and we also configured this engine for heavy fuels (diesel aka: JP-4, 5 or 6). My impression is it’s a waste of time and money and I’ll put it up there with those “Tornado” inlet stationary fan gizmos. Maybe further development in these “ionizers” may result in something actually working to the point it can be measured someday?? As of now there junk.

~Mike.................


These test were done approximately 5-7 years ago, so I can't speak of these "new" ones or if there has been any actual development sense then.

Last edited by RacerXtreme7; 04-21-04 at 10:17 AM.
Old 04-21-04, 10:17 AM
  #15  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
 
BATMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley Bay Area
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
XSTransAm,

Do u happen to go to the University of Maryland?
Old 04-21-04, 12:50 PM
  #16  
Ee / Cpe

 
XSTransAm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD / WVU
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by BATMAN
XSTransAm,

Do u happen to go to the University of Maryland?
nah, im in morgantown West Virginia University.

not my first choice of schools, but i think the stigma preceeds it.
Old 04-21-04, 01:37 PM
  #17  
Moderator

iTrader: (3)
 
j9fd3s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,982
Received 2,688 Likes on 1,903 Posts
Originally posted by RacerXtreme7
I work at NASA (LaRC aka: Langley Research Center) here in Virginia. I was involved in several tests using these fuel "ionizers". We tested a small block Chevy v8 (Carter carb), small 2 cycle Sachs single cylinder (83cc), our own 2 cylinder 2 cycle miniature helicopter engines ( opposed twin 40 cc). The small block was tested on a water brake dyno and the smaller engines were inertial dyno’ed using a flywheel type weight the motors had to spin up. A Chrysler v8 (355 cid?) and Ford inline 6 (300 cid) was also road tested in vehicles and our results for all test was ZERO. NO improved power, NO improved economy, NO difference in emissions. We used 5 versions of the same "ionizers". We used standard pump gas and tried different grades and octane ratings. The single cylinder Sachs test was standard pump (2 stroke oil added) and we also configured this engine for heavy fuels (diesel aka: JP-4, 5 or 6). My impression is it’s a waste of time and money and I’ll put it up there with those “Tornado” inlet stationary fan gizmos. Maybe further development in these “ionizers” may result in something actually working to the point it can be measured someday?? As of now there junk.

~Mike.................


These test were done approximately 5-7 years ago, so I can't speak of these "new" ones or if there has been any actual development sense then.
lmao, batman has the tornado too!
Old 04-21-04, 02:36 PM
  #18  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
 
BATMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Silicon Valley Bay Area
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Left-handed air-guitar players
Old 04-21-04, 07:57 PM
  #19  
Junior Member

 
wakeech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC, Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
can you electrostatically charge a non-conductive, non-polar organic molecule in the first place??
Old 04-21-04, 11:43 PM
  #20  
W. TX chirpin Monkey

 
fastrotaries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Mesquite, TX
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you could charge it, wouldn't it want to stick to the manifold, and such. Seeing how they're metallic and grounded? I just don't really see the logic here.
Old 04-22-04, 12:42 AM
  #21  
sdrawkcab

iTrader: (1)
 
rotarypower101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 1,920
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I like the pic for the FD3S “as close to the fuel injector as possible for best results” about 2 feet away from the closest injector.

These have been proven on the dyno with accurate equipment to not work at all!
Kinda like that black box filled with potting material and tinfoil with a fuse in it that is supposed to reduce interference and give better HP
Old 04-22-04, 08:53 AM
  #22  
Rotary Enthusiast

 
drago86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: California, Bay Area
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree how can a non polar molecule be ionized?
Old 04-22-04, 10:06 AM
  #23  
it WILL run

 
wwilliam54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by wakeech
can you electrostatically charge a non-conductive, non-polar organic molecule in the first place??
Old 04-22-04, 10:10 AM
  #24  
it WILL run

 
wwilliam54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by drago86
I agree how can a non polar molecule be ionized?
by ignorance and money
Old 04-25-04, 09:19 AM
  #25  
Fecal Matter

 
fc1jz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

If I want better fuel atomization, I usually walk around the car 7 times humming the theme song from Laverne and Shirley.

This may be considered "old fashioned" but I get good results.


Quick Reply: Ionized Fuel for better Efficiency and less prone to KABOOM?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.