Not another one.......

[jmw]

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.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[WolfHR]

If the trouble is indeed with charging of the fuel as it passes through the system- wouldn't making those fuel lines out of some sort of insulating material work better than this? (I'm no expert on either engines or fuels, but all this to me smells fishy- magical solution to problems I didn't even know existed)

 

[patprimmer]

Sounds like complete bunkum to me.

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 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[ivymike]

I'm on vacation at the moment and so I'm posting from a tavlet computer, which means that editing the text I've typed on eng-tips is tedious and fruatrating -pardon the typos.

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?

 

[WolfHR]

IvyMike- the site claims the static electricity (fuel discharges electrons while passing through the system and ends up positively charged) is bad because it promotes wall-wetting and the magic liquid stops it from getting charged...

 

[ivymike]

Oh wow, he is trying to do the opposite - to reduce static charge - not sure that will help any.

 

[jmw]

Well, why not reverse the polarity of the electric system?
being connected to an earth it is connected to the positive which should repel those fuel drops and prevent wall wetting?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

PS If all this does is reduce the static charge, why has it a suggestive name like Oxtane.... ?

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

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Oh what joy, this one Linkedin thread that I just discovered has brought all the snake oil salesmen (and women) to one place ..... the original poster cannot have imagined that his post would have the same effect on snake oil salesmen as "lamping" (and they are immediately biting each other!).

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[IceStationZebra]

"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."

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

 

[PEW]

I have been flying for a living for 35 years.

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.

 

[BigInch]

IceZebra is correct. The static grounding lines you all talk about are to ground skin of the machine, tanker, aircraft. However fuel sliding along on the inside of metal pipe, discharging from pipe into a tank, or bouncing around inside a roadtanker does get charged. Jet A1 will get an injected dose of static inhibitors just before it is loaded onboard an aircraft. It must be done at that moment because the static inhibitor/kerosene mixture will not work, if it is pumped after mixed, as the inhibitor in the mix gets sheared up going through a pump.

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."

 

[PEW]

Jet A1 will get an injected dose of static inhibitors just before it is loaded onboard an aircraft. It must be done at that moment because the static inhibitor/kerosene mixture will not work, if it is pumped after mixed, as the inhibitor in the mix gets sheared up going through a pump."[Quote/]

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?

 

[BigInch]

Google "Jet A1 static inhibitor injection" There's a couple of NATO procedures that will come up. As far as I know that's supposed to be the procedure.

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."

 

[PEW]

I think the mixing of an anti-static additive must be done well before it gets to the aircraft refuelling point. The articles I found via Google search mentioned nothing about this; the only references I did find mentioned an anti-static additive as part of the fuel specifications, presumably done on bulk supply.

 

[BigInch]

Should be at the airport depot tanks if they are filled by pipeline, or at the bulk plant that fills the trucks that bring the fuel to the airport tanks.

From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."

 

[PEW]

Yes, this I would agree with. To the best of my knowledge, it's certainly not done as I understood from your original quote:

"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.

 

[PEW]

Checked with our company refuelling specialist just now. He says that the anti-static additive is put into the fuel at point of manufacture, i.e well before it gets into the dispensing bowser.

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.

 

[BigInch]

For me anything downstream of a pipeline is, "before loading the A/C". According to my understanding, A1 with antistatic mix is not suitable for high shearing loads imposed by large pumps. "Point of manufacture" could easily be at a local refinery where it is loaded directly to trucks going to the airport tanks. If the tanks are not fed by a pipeline, that's OK. Many airports do not have direct pipeline feeds.

From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."

 

[jmw]

Here is 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

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com