No surprise to me, but at least it was scientific. The writer of the blog said it well:
As regular readers who’ve been subjected to my snowstorms of links to Tony’s Guide to Fuel Saving will already know, modern engines in anything vaguely resembling a decent state of tune only fail to burn a few per cent of their fuel, at the very most.
If you’re only blowing 2% of the fuel out of the exhaust valve in the first place, improving combustion can only gain you a maximum economy and/or power increase of that same 2%.
If a fuel-saver inventor bothers to address this unfortunate fact, they usually start banging on about how functionally all of the fuel might be getting burned in the engine, but their invention makes it burn faster, or more evenly, or something.
I am pleased to say that no such nonsense is being put forward by the inventors of this latest gizmo. They’re streets ahead of most of the other purveyors of magnets and crystals and stickers and mothball pills, for one reason: These people are actually doing proper science. They have written up and published their research. And they’re not selling anything.
You just don’t see this sort of… honesty… from most mileage-gadget inventors. These guys are telling the world exactly what they did, and inviting replication of their results. This is what proper scientists always do, but it’s almost unknown in the mileage-gadget world. The closest mileage-gadget people usually get is encouraging hundreds of dudes in garages to all try to finally make the first Joe Cell that actually works.
This is an interesting bit to note:
But now we strike a problem. Devices to improve fuel atomisation are not new. They’ve been around for ages. And, as Tony points out on the above-linked page, even if the fuel is a vapour when it’s introduced into the combustion chamber - if it’s petrol that’s been pre-heated by a fuel-saving gizmo, or if the engine’s running on LPG or CNG - there’s only a very small efficiency gain, if any at all.
Then it all comes crashing down when the author finds out that the legit scientific article was still leading up to a product sales pitch...
When I first wrote this piece, I missed the end of this press release, which mentions that the new electronic viscosity device has already been “licensed” to an outfit called “Save The World Air“.
STWA’s current mainstay product appears to be the “MagChargR“, which looks to me like an entirely straightforward magnetic “fuel saver”. The Temple University researcher who’s come up with the new electronic viscosity doodad appears to be involved up to his hips in STWA. This immensely reduces my opinion of him and of the value of his research. It seems clear to me now that he is actually in this for the money, even if he has published his method and results.
It ends on this damning note:
If I were selling a legitimate fuel-saving device, I would not choose to go into partnership with a company which, currently, proudly offers what looks to me exactly like an illegitimate fuel saving device.
Well, zero_gravity, good job finding the original link, and good job finding that blog.
A very good reference document is the work done by the EPA on hydraulic hybrids. Google "EPA Hydraulic Hybrids" if you want some extensive research.
Powertrain improvements that allow the engine to be disconnected from the drivetrain, Parallel Hydraulic Hybrid configurations are projected to improve efficiency by 80% with engine off at any time unless storage regeneration is provided by the powerplant.
Their 2006 document included projections of 66 MPG in local driving and 50 MPG highway for a 7400 pound class 2 truck with a frontal area of 3.7 meters and a CD of .32-.34. Engine efficiency for that configuration was listed at 42% which is right at the top of the best efficiency for current diesels.
Not to comment on the item in question but to address several points on EFI set ups.
Car makers send as much fuel to the engine as it needs for full power / max revs running. Since this is obviously not all the time the unused amount is sent back to the tank. The aim is to improve throttle response when needed.
Most EFI systems run about 100 or so PSI (around 6 / 7 bar for metric) at the injectors. The transfer pump ( to get the fuel from the tank to the engine ) can run as low as 5 PSI ( about 0.5 bar) so long as the volume is sufficient.
Finally the latest generation of EFI systems don't run return lines. They simply supply what is needed by commands from the ECU for the injectors.
Wouldn't that indicate that other manufacturers wouldn't need returns on their fuel injection systems?
Addressing this and what Pete just posted about returnless systems, I suspect they are now using a pressure bypass within the tank. How they actually regulate pressure from there is a guess, but it's probably still mostly mechanical at the fuel rail.
As RIDE said the voltage sent to the pump is varied by the ECU thus providing a sort of simple and low cost variable displacement pump.
Strictly speaking it is variable speed but the effect is the same.
In addition returnless systems hold larger volumes at the engine helping to avoid problems of heat build up after shut down and starvation from those instances when the driver floors the gas pedal...not that anyone here would ever do that of course.