Not another one.......
Not another one.......
(OP)
Oxtane!
Might this one actually work?
I've seen a couple of snake oil posters over at linkedin bt this has a better line of jargon than most.......but its those electrons again.... and why don't I just add one of those no moving parts clamp on the outside of the pipe "Energiser" thingies?
The reports all seem to be emissions tests at public type testing stations and there is no EPA test though I thought fuel additives had to be tested by them in tests under their control.
Usually they claim either a quasi believable 4-10% fuel efficiency gain or 30% or so. This claims 15%.
I am worried that I am not seeing this clearly one way or another and might end up believing one of those emails from Nigeria.
Might this one actually work?
I've seen a couple of snake oil posters over at linkedin bt this has a better line of jargon than most.......but its those electrons again.... and why don't I just add one of those no moving parts clamp on the outside of the pipe "Energiser" thingies?
The reports all seem to be emissions tests at public type testing stations and there is no EPA test though I thought fuel additives had to be tested by them in tests under their control.
Usually they claim either a quasi believable 4-10% fuel efficiency gain or 30% or so. This claims 15%.
I am worried that I am not seeing this clearly one way or another and might end up believing one of those emails from Nigeria.





RE: Not another one.......
RE: Not another one.......
I have never seen fuel itself discharge static electricity. If it did store static to the extent a discharge was possible we would hear about the reasonably common resultant explosions.
I knoe fuel hoses at bowsers are earthed to ground static,but to the best of my knowledge that is to ground the static build up in the car itself.
Why would static that is not grounded change the combustion characteristics of a fuel air mixture in the chamber.
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
RE: Not another one.......
I worked for a while with an engineer who had worked at a refinery previously, and he had at one time place a video camera inside a diesel fuel tank on a fuel tanker truck. Apparently the static discharge inside the tank was remarkable - looked like a lightning storm. He said they don't blow up because it is rare for a flammable mixture to exist inside the tank, but that certain temperature ranges were dangerous.
Statically charged fuel would likely aid fuel dispersion, as it helps paint dispursion from a paint sprayer, by forcing small droplets of fuel to push away from each other.
I didnt read the post yet, but how does the poster propose to keep the fuel charged as it moves through conductive orifices?
RE: Not another one.......
RE: Not another one.......
RE: Not another one.......
being connected to an earth it is connected to the positive which should repel those fuel drops and prevent wall wetting?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Not another one.......
Lots of nice links (ta very much) but rather too many as if trying to use the extent of the links to imply veracity and including to Dr Jeremy Smallwood's Pavillion home page which does indeed talk about electrostatic paint sprayers amongst other things and links to EDC organisations, etc..
There was somewhere a comment that they would only discuss with "serious" enquirers.
This is linked to Internal Combustion SCientific Llc. but every rock seems to have its own variant hidden beneath - here is another 10-15% fuel economy "additive" improver though this one claims an EPA report.
I begin to wonder just how inefficient engines must be that so many additives can deliver 10-15%, and in extreme cases 30%, fuel efficiency improvements and where they don't address the same issue I realise that by combining different solutions, even though it may push the cost per gallon up to extraordinary levels the combined effect would seem to be that the engine won't actually use any fuel.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Not another one.......
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Not another one.......
Hydraulic oil can discharge like this, to the point that it actually turns smells burnt and has to be replaced. From what I remember the main source of static is usually the oil being shoved through the oil filter.
ISZ
RE: Not another one.......
Aviation fuel bowser hoses are required to be bonded / earthed to the airframe. The bowswer is also bonded to the airframe, via a separate lead to the airframe.
Obviously, the initial static difference between the hose and airframe is discharged via a bonding lead at the nozzle end, rather than allowing it to spark from the hose nozzle to the filler orifice (the place where a fuel air mixture is most likely).
However, I have always been told that the subsequent movement of jet fuel in the hose does generate a further static charge. So all the bonding leads are kept on until after refuelling is complete. The last thing to be done before fuelling is to remove the filler cap (all bonding leads already in place). After refuelling, the first thing to be done is to replace the filler cap, the bonding leads are removed last.
I learned years ago that static charge generation is more likely with Jet fuel (similar to road diesel) than it is with AVGAS (petroleum based fuel).
But if it was such a big problem why don't we have to earth/bond refuelling hoses for automobiles at gas stations, bearing in mind that both types of fuel are sold?
I wouldn't buy any more of these "snake oil" devices. I do have one magnetic fuel saving device which I bought some years ago, because the proceeds were going to a kids' charity. I found it gave exactly the same mileage improvement when hanging on a nail on the garage as it did on the car.
RE: Not another one.......
Discharges from pipe into a tank should enter the tank below the fluid level to minimize static buildup possibilities. It is more prevalent when droplets of fuel are in maximum surface area contact with any gases in the tank. Another reason for bottom loading roadtankers.
From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."
RE: Not another one.......
As I said, I've been flying for a living for a very long time (35 years) and have personally refuelled aircraft many times, both military and civilian. I've done so from wheeled bowsers / tankers, trailers, fuel bunds, air portable bladder tanks (quite a number of which I've carried as underslung loads under my helicopter) and refuelled from them in the jungle using a pump powered by a VW Beetle engine. Also used drumstock, the latter using an electric pump powered by the aircraft battery. I was the chief pilot at a UK police helicopter unit and had responsibilities in this respect, with regard to safety of refuelling from our 33,000 litre fuel installation and liaised with the delivery drivers.
I stood next to the Agusta 109S helicopter I flew into London Heathrow Airport last night, supervising our refuelling with Jet A1 for the trip I've just returned from this morning.
However, this is the first time I've heard this theory about injecting a static inhibitor fluid at the actual point of refuel.
"PRIST" fuel anti-icing inhibitor, yes in the past on some aircraft types where not already mixed in bulk fuel deliveries, but that is now not commonly used due to it being a potential carcinogen. Our helicopter has an oil heated fuel system and doesn't need it anyway.
But injecting a static charge inhibitor fluid at the nozzle? No.
So I must ask a few questions. Where and how does the static inhibitor actually enter the fuel? What is the product name? Where is it stored on the refuelling vehicle / point?
RE: Not another one.......
Injection can be at other places nearby rather than at the aircraft itself. Just not somewhere in the upstream pipeline.
From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."
RE: Not another one.......
RE: Not another one.......
From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."
RE: Not another one.......
"Jet A1 will get an injected dose of static inhibitors just before it is loaded onboard an aircraft".
To clarify the situation in my own mind, I'll ask our tame refuelling specialist at work (ex BP tanker driver and aircraft refueller, now working for the same company as me).
I'll also check with the company owner, who buys all our Jet A-1 from the depot (the company I work for also refuels most of the non-scheduled, general aviation aircraft at my base, an international airport).
If I remember next time I'm at work and not in a hurry. ;)
RE: Not another one.......
He re-iterated my point that anti-icing additive may sometimes be added at the time of refuelling an aircraft; i.e. it's squirted from an aerosol can into the aircraft tanks as the fuel goes in.
This was previously also mixed by the manufacturer; for some reason they now now longer do this. A memo came round in the last couple of years or so to let us know that operators were responsible for adding their own Prist, or similar, where needed.
RE: Not another one.......
From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."
RE: Not another one.......
This is again from Linkedin which seems to draw these things like flies.
Just click the link and watch the video.... some great claims here!
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com