Fuel-saving devices are sold on the after-sales market with claims to improve fuel economy and/or exhaust emissions from each destination to optimize ignition, airflow, or fuel flow in several ways. The earliest example of a device sold with a difficult to justify claim is a 200 mpg carburetor designed by Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue.
The US EPA is required by Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Saving Act to test many of these devices and to provide public reports of their efficacy; agencies find most devices do not improve fuel economy to a measurable level, unlike forced induction, water injection (engine), intercooling and other long-established fuel economy devices. Testing by Popular Mechanics magazine also found this type of device that is not proven does not result in measurable improvements in fuel consumption or power, and in some cases actually lowers power and fuel economy.
Other organizations that are generally considered to be reputable, such as the American Automobile Association and Consumer Reports have conducted studies with similar results.
One of the reasons why the ineffectiveness of gadget fuel savings is the difficulty of accurately measuring small changes in vehicle fuel economy. This is because of the high level of variance in vehicle fuel consumption under normal driving conditions. Due to selective perceptions and confirmation bias, device buyers can see an increase where nothing really exists. Also, the observer-hope effect can cause the user to subconsciously change their driving habits. These biases can be either positive or negative to the tool being tested, depending on the individual's bias. For this reason, the regulatory body has developed a standard drive cycle for consistent and accurate vehicle fuel consumption testing. Where fuel economy does not improve after device installation, it is usually due to a tune-up procedure performed as part of the installation. In older systems with distributor turning, device manufacturers will define time beyond those recommended by the manufacturer, which in itself can improve fuel economy while potentially increasing the emissions of some combustion products, at the risk of possible machine breakdown.
Video Fuel saving device
Device type
Modify accessory drives
Modifying drive accessory systems can improve fuel economy and performance to some extent. The underdrive drive modifies the amount of engine power that the accessory can pull. Such changes to the drive system for an alternator or an AC compressor (rather than a power steering pump, for example) may damage the utility of the vehicle (eg, by not keeping the battery fully charged), but will not damage safety.
Fuel & amp; oil additives
Compounds sold for the addition of vehicle fuel may include lead, magnesium and platinum. This claimed purpose is generally to increase the energy density of the fuel. Additives for the addition of engine oil, sometimes marketed as "machine maintenance", contain compounds of teflon, zinc, or chlorine.
Magnet
Magnets attached to vehicle fuel lines have been claimed to improve fuel economy by aligning fuel molecules, but because motor fuel is non-polar, there is no alignment or other magnetic effects on possible fuels. When tested, a typical magnetic device has no effect on vehicle performance or economy.
Steam device
Some devices claim to increase efficiency by changing the way liquid fuels are converted to steam. These include fuel heaters and devices to increase or decrease turbulence in the intake manifold. This does not work on standard vehicles because the principle has already been applied to machine design. However, this method is inseparable to make conversion of vegetable oil, and similar heavy oil machine, running at all.
The water-draining device
Devices have been marketed that drain little air into the fuel line before the carburetor. This can improve fuel economy because the engine runs a bit lean as a consequence. However, slender run of the manufacturer is intended to cause excessive heat, piston damage, maximum power loss and bad emissions (eg, higher NOx due to higher combustion temperatures, or, if misfiring, higher HC).
Electronic devices
Some electronic devices are marketed as a fuel saver. FD-47 Fuel Doctor, for example, connects to vehicle cigarette lighter and displays multiple LEDs. It is claimed to increase the fuel economy of vehicles by up to 25% through "power conditioning of the vehicle's electrical systems", but Consumer Reports detects no difference in economy or strength in testing on ten separate vehicles, finding that the device does nothing but power on. Car and Driver magazine found that the device contained nothing but a "simple circuit board for LED light", and the unloading and circuit analysis reached the same conclusion. The creator refutes the claim that the device has no effect, and proposes a change to the Consumer Reports testing procedure, which when implemented is no different than the result.
Another device described as 'electronics' is 'Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver'. Testing of this device results in loss of power and fire engine compartment.
There is also a truly useful emission control device that operates by enabling vehicle engines to operate outside government-imposed exhaust emissions parameters. These government standards force the plant machinery to operate beyond their most efficient operating range. Both the engine control unit is reprogrammed to operate more efficiently, or sensors that affect the operation of the ECU are modified or 'simulated' to make it operate in a more efficient way. The oxygen sensor simulator allows the economic-fuel catalytic converter to be removed. Such devices are often sold only for "off-road use".
Maps Fuel saving device
Thermodynamic efficiency
Alasan mengapa sebagian besar perangkat tidak mampu menghasilkan peningkatan yang diklaim didasarkan pada termodinamika. Rumus ini mengungkapkan efisiensi teoritis mesin bensin:
where ? is efficiency, r v is the compression ratio, and ? is the ratio of the specific heat of the cylindrical gases.
The ideal machine assumption without friction, perfect insulation, perfect combustion, 10: 1 compression ratio, and '?' of 1.27 (for gasoline-air combustion), the theoretical efficiency of the engine will be 46%.
For example, if a car usually gets 20 miles & lt; 32.19 km & gt; per gallon with an efficient 20% engine that has a 10: 1 compression ratio, a carburetor that claims 100MPG should increase efficiency by a factor of 5, to 100%. This clearly goes beyond what is theoretically or practically possible. 300MPG similar claims for any vehicle will require a 300% efficient (in this special case) machine that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Highly efficient vehicle designs capable of reaching 100MPG (like the VW 1l) do not have much greater engine efficiency, but focus on better aerodynamics, reduce vehicle weight, and use energy that otherwise would be lost as heat during braking.
Urban legend
There is an indisputable urban legend about an inventor who created 100 mpg (2.35 L/100 km) or even a 200 mpg carburetor, but after demonstrating it for a major vehicle manufacturer, the inventor mysteriously disappears. In some versions of the story, he is claimed to have been killed by the government. This fiction is thought to have started after Canadian Charles Nelson Pogue filed in 1930 for such a device, followed by another.
MythBusters
The popular US television show MythBusters investigates some fuel-saving devices that use gasoline-driven cars and diesel fuel under controlled circumstances. Fuel channel magnets, which should align the fuel molecules so they burn better, are tested and found not to make a difference in fuel consumption. The undeniable idea that adding acetone to gasoline increases efficiency by making gasoline burn more perfectly without damaging the plastic parts of the fuel system tested, and although there is no real damage to the fuel system, the fuel economy of the vehicle is really worsening.
The event tested the hypothesis that cars with carburetor type gasoline engines can run on hydrogen gas alone, which is confirmed as viable, despite the high cost of hydrogen gas as well as the current storage difficulties prohibiting widespread adoption. They also tested devices that allegedly produced enough hydrogen to power the car with electrolysis (running an electric current through water to separate its molecules into hydrogen and oxygen). Although some hydrogen is produced, the amount is very small compared to the amount required to run the car for even a few seconds.
The event also tests carburetors that, according to the manufacturer, can improve fuel efficiency up to 300 miles & lt; 482.80Ã, km & gt; per gallon. However, these devices actually make the car less fuel efficient. They also determined that diesel-powered cars could run on used cooking oil even though they did not check whether it was damaging the engine.
The event notes that of 104 fuel efficiency devices tested by the EPA, only seven showed an improvement in efficiency, and even then, the increase was never more than six percent. The event also noted that if one of the devices they tested really worked as far as it should, the episode would be one of the most legendary hours on television.
See also
- The history of immortal motion machine
- Average Fuel Economy Company
- Emission standards
- Magnetic water treatment
References
External links
- "Fuel savings - a professional engineer's view". fuelsaving.info . December 10, 2005. Archived from the original on December 10, 2005 . Retrieved May 12 2014 . Ã, including case study on " Case Study: Vaporate (TM) * ". fuelsaving.info . 5 February 2006. Archived from the original on 5 February 2006 . Retrieved May 12 2014 .
- FCIC warnings on fuel-saving devices
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments