Comments on: Not your everyday fuel-saving gadget http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/ the blog that is not dansdata.com Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:54:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Road Transport http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-4298 Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:45:32 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-4298 <strong>Today in Road Transport, 13th February 2009</strong> Trucks move 68% of freight in UK; new rail terminal at Telford; Hungarian driver jailed; fuel-saving device apparently saves 10% Today in Road Transport, 13th February 2009

Trucks move 68% of freight in UK; new rail terminal at Telford; Hungarian driver jailed; fuel-saving device apparently saves 10%

]]> by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3169 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:00:03 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3169 I strongly doubt this device, even if it works as advertised, will replace fuel heaters, or dual-fuel systems (where, as I've mentioned <a href="/2006/12/04/saving-the-environment-without-looking-stupid-a-primer/" rel="nofollow">before</a>, you start on mineral diesel then switch to vegetable oil when the engine's warm). The reduction in viscosity allegedly caused by the electronic device does not, I think, even remotely approach the reduction that's needed to get a vegetable-oil diesel started at zero Celsius, let alone below freezing. I strongly doubt this device, even if it works as advertised, will replace fuel heaters, or dual-fuel systems (where, as I've mentioned before, you start on mineral diesel then switch to vegetable oil when the engine's warm).

The reduction in viscosity allegedly caused by the electronic device does not, I think, even remotely approach the reduction that's needed to get a vegetable-oil diesel started at zero Celsius, let alone below freezing.

]]> by: chronoso http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3168 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:02:25 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3168 the 300D is one of the most common cars for conversion to waste vegetable oil conversion, in which fuel viscosity is a big concern. especially at cold temps, so maybe this could help the whole 'i cant drive for free because it's too cold here to drive on mcdonalds fry grease' the 300D is one of the most common cars for conversion to waste vegetable oil conversion, in which fuel viscosity is a big concern. especially at cold temps, so maybe this could help the whole 'i cant drive for free because it's too cold here to drive on mcdonalds fry grease'

]]> by: Ches http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3158 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:56:23 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3158 That's the way i see it. I haven't read the paper though, just Dan's executive summary :) Perhaps Mr. Rutter would like to comment? That's the way i see it. I haven't read the paper though, just Dan's executive summary :)

Perhaps Mr. Rutter would like to comment?

]]> by: MichaelWright http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3156 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:37 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3156 @Ches: ah, enlightenment dawns. Their point is that their electrical wotzit reduces viscosity, which can improve atomisation, which can improve efficiency. To demonstrate this, they use a sub-optimal old lump, so they can show clearly the effect of their doo-hickey. All this is entirely kosher, since they're not selling anything, nor are they claiming that their way of improving atomisation is superior to all the other ways that have been developed since the MB 300D was designed. They demonstrate an effect: whether it gets to be used is a question of engineering. @Ches: ah, enlightenment dawns. Their point is that their electrical wotzit reduces viscosity, which can improve atomisation, which can improve efficiency. To demonstrate this, they use a sub-optimal old lump, so they can show clearly the effect of their doo-hickey.

All this is entirely kosher, since they're not selling anything, nor are they claiming that their way of improving atomisation is superior to all the other ways that have been developed since the MB 300D was designed. They demonstrate an effect: whether it gets to be used is a question of engineering.

]]> by: Ches http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3155 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:41:47 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3155 This seems entirely plausible to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you definitely *can* get better power and fuel economy by better atomisation of fuel in a diesel engine, which is why high-pressure, common rail diesels are so much better. Secondly, this is an ancient engine, designed well before the kind of modern techniques that mean current engines only fail to burn a small percentage of fuel. So combine a novel, but crude, technique to better mix fuel and air with immature diesel engine design and you see a nifty improvement. So whilst it seems plausible, it's also pretty trivial. Apply this technology to a modern common-rail diesel engine and i bet you see zero improvement (as you expected). This seems entirely plausible to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you definitely *can* get better power and fuel economy by better atomisation of fuel in a diesel engine, which is why high-pressure, common rail diesels are so much better. Secondly, this is an ancient engine, designed well before the kind of modern techniques that mean current engines only fail to burn a small percentage of fuel. So combine a novel, but crude, technique to better mix fuel and air with immature diesel engine design and you see a nifty improvement.

So whilst it seems plausible, it's also pretty trivial.

Apply this technology to a modern common-rail diesel engine and i bet you see zero improvement (as you expected).

]]> by: VMax http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3151 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:27:28 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3151 Could the horsepower rating be specific hp, as in 0.3677hp per cubic inch? That would give overall numbers of ~67 and ~81hp, which makes vague sense given the 79-87hp (depending upon year) factory spec, according to Wikipedia's article on the OM617 engine. Of course, I'd have expected specific capacity in cc rather than ci, but a) a 300D with 1100bhp seems unlikely, and b) they're already mixing things up with imperial power units and metric fuel consumption, so why the hell not, eh? Could the horsepower rating be specific hp, as in 0.3677hp per cubic inch? That would give overall numbers of ~67 and ~81hp, which makes vague sense given the 79-87hp (depending upon year) factory spec, according to Wikipedia's article on the OM617 engine.
Of course, I'd have expected specific capacity in cc rather than ci, but a) a 300D with 1100bhp seems unlikely, and b) they're already mixing things up with imperial power units and metric fuel consumption, so why the hell not, eh?

]]> by: Microfrost http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3150 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:43:11 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3150 Based on the Cornaglia Iveco fuel consumption being stated as 11.31-12.04 kilogams/hour, I think it's safe to assume the Mercede-Benz 300D fuel consumption should be read as 500 grams/hour. This may seem odd from the perspective of a consumer used to thinking about fuel consumption volumetrically, but consider how much more precisely you can measure mass than volume in a lab setting. As someone who's tried it both ways, believe me, mass is the way to go. I still can't get my head around the tiny horsepower figures, though. Based on the Cornaglia Iveco fuel consumption being stated as 11.31-12.04 kilogams/hour, I think it's safe to assume the Mercede-Benz 300D fuel consumption should be read as 500 grams/hour. This may seem odd from the perspective of a consumer used to thinking about fuel consumption volumetrically, but consider how much more precisely you can measure mass than volume in a lab setting. As someone who's tried it both ways, believe me, mass is the way to go.

I still can't get my head around the tiny horsepower figures, though.

]]> by: Chris Lineker http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3149 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:44:02 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3149 Grams per hour? Seems odd to measure fuel in grams though. Grams per hour?

Seems odd to measure fuel in grams though.

]]> by: demiller9 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3148 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:35:34 +0100 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/09/28/not-your-everyday-fuel-saving-gadget/#comment-3148 There is something <em>definitely</em> wrong with their numbers - "fuel consumption rate close to <b>500 g/h</b>"? That means running through a full tank of fuel in just a couple of minutes! There is something definitely wrong with their numbers - "fuel consumption rate close to 500 g/h"? That means running through a full tank of fuel in just a couple of minutes!

]]>