Water in the Fuel--can we save a few bucks??

kalitan97828

2008-03-21 13:22:18

I looked into this technology several years ago when it was being developed. I see it is now available to purchase. My fifteen year old truck has 191,000 miles so I can't hurt it much but wonder if this might help on fuel consumption with my 671. Anyway the link is:http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=bmt2005 Any thoughts??

Carl

Ocean Gold

2008-03-22 16:03:20

You first , my experiance is oil and water don't mix.

tacorajim

2008-03-23 01:09:37

Some bigger boats switching to biodiesel change filters twice as often, but with no obvious loss of power. Heavy construction companies are running a few non-essential rigs on this stuff, experimentally (tax incentive?). But nobody's jumping up and shouting yet. All I can say is keep that precious fuel away from water, salt or fresh.

yak2you2

2008-03-23 14:19:09

none

Ocean Gold

2008-03-23 20:10:01

Before trying the water thing Carl, I is so much cheaper to take out the 671 and put in a tier II engine. That 6 gph will drop significantly.

We played with some electric formulas for running motors and the horse power needed to turn a prop big enough to move a 40' boat would have to be around a 18-20 kw and would drink more fuel at 1800 rpm under load than the 671 would just idling along.

Salty

2008-03-24 17:32:59

Ed,

I see your nice quotes on the Hoonah Harbor. And when the legislature leaves and takes most of the capital with it Juneau might become affordable enough for fishermen to live their again. Perhaps Dipac and Juneau gillnetters will decide it is in their interest and the interest of Juneau to start sharing some of those Dipac chums with trollers. But, the sun might start rising in the west too.

Looks like the herring fishery is going to go off this week. I remember when Juneau had a herring fishery, before the fleet went to the Governor, who overrode the dept. and opened it in 77.

Lots of wind here this spring. It has been over a week now since the guys have had a decent day to work, either longlining or trolling.

Eric

Ocean Gold

2008-03-24 19:53:59

OK Carl,

I talked it over with our running partner, and he suggested intalling a water puppy to a thru-hull and then directly to the injector pump. Endless supply of fuel, and no need for fuel tanks so you can increase your hold capacity several times. Let us know how it works....

Ed

kalitan97828

2008-04-03 11:34:37

I came across this site located in Washington State and thoought I would share it.

Re: Diesel Application

From: George Wiseman (wiseman@eagle-research.com)

Sent:Wed 4/02/08 5:25 PM

To: Carl Peterson (kalitan97828@hotmail.com)

On 1-Apr-08, at 7:59 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:

Hello,

I am an Alaskan Commercial fisherman trolling out of Sitka. I have a 42' Sunjford hull powered by a 671N GMC diesel rated at 219 HP at 2100 RPM. At 1800 RPM I burn about 5 gallons/hr. Most of our time, however, is spent at trolling speed which is about 800 RPM and the fuel consumption is estimated at 1.5-2.0 gallons/hr. My questions involve applicability,

excellent.

estimated fuel savings,

I'd estimate in the 15% range, would be more if you add the HyCO 2DT.

cost of a unit for that size engine,

In the $1,000 range.

what effect the gas may have on engine noise ( if any--Jimmies are notoriously loud )

Should run quieter if anything.

and exactly what is the chemical reaction with Brown's gas that increases the fuel economy.

Here's a write-up I've put together:

Our research so far has been with using Brown's Gas to

increase the efficiency of internal combustion and then add water to

compensate for the fuel mass that we have reduced. We have the world's

best such technology and we describe it in our HyZor Technology book.

Brown's Gas acts like a catalyst for the fossil-fuel combustion.

The catalytic effect works at the molecular level, helping the fuel's atomic

bonds to break with less energy input. I call it 'lowering the

combustion self-propagating endothermic energy requirement'. Thus, when

the fuel burns, the combustion requires less of the heat energy produced

to keep the combustion happening. This allows (for the same fuel mass)

more (exothermic) energy to be released as heat. The quantity of

additional heat energy released is far greater than the energy used to

make the Brown's Gas.

Note: The actual energy put in (to make Brown's Gas) is 98% recovered in

the combustion process; that's why the catalytic enhancement shows up as

a significant 'free energy' gain as heat.

Our research so far indicates that this catalytic effect is much more

effective on long chain hydrocarbons. So Methane (Compressed Natural

Gas) has the least gain, Gasoline (Petrol) has a greater gain, Diesel has

a very good gain (around 50%) and heavy oils (like the crude used to fuel

ocean going ships) get the greatest gain (can replace up to 90% of fuel

with water).

This data is based on our own internal combustion research and on data

acquired from various other sources that add hydrogen to assist

fossil-fuel combustion. Our research has been done at ratios of about

5,000:1 fossil-fuel:Brown's Gas, so it may be quite true that higher

concentrations of Brown's Gas will result in even more fuel savings.

Because we were researching with increasing the efficiency of internal

combustion in mobile applications, we were limited in by the vehicle's

electrical input. Stationary applications are not so limited. Since the

actual energy put in (to make Brown's Gas) is recovered in the combustion

process, and the electricity didn't come at such a dear price as in

vehicle applications (7 watts of fuel burned to make 1 watt of

electricity), there is a much greater potential for profitable efficiency

gains in stationary applications.

Do you have any installations in a commercial application such as this and what has been the result?

From 15% to 50%.

I would appreciate an email response as I will be out of phone contact for a week starting the 3rd. If you wish to call before then my number is 503-694-6084.

I deal with over 1000 emails a day, so please accept my apology for this initial brief response. To answer your questions faster (and minimize my time), Please view this FAQ page and get back to me with specific questions that are not addressed. Note that there is a PDF flowchart to assist you.

http://www.eagle-research.com/FAQ/FS/fsfaq.html

http://www.eagle-research.com/store

http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/FiveYrCalc.html

George

Thanks,

Carl Peterson

f/v Last Dance

George Wiseman

wiseman@eagle-research.com

Ocean Gold

2008-04-08 05:13:40

I think a new engine is still saves 8/10ths more , 2 gph - 10% fuel saving = 1.8 gpm at a idle at a cost of $1000.00 . At 1000 hrs you would save 200 gals (if it worked) but you would still burn 1800 gal. But with a new engine you would burn about the same as mine 1 gal per hour for 1000 gals for a savings of $2972.00 at the 3.72 price the other day. Have you thought about sail power? I have a real problem thinking about pouring H2o into my engine. At 3k + savings a year it dosn't take long to pay for the depenability and fuel saving

Jon

2008-04-08 14:52:58

There's another diesel fuel additive, created at Oxford University, which created a spin-off company to produce and sell the product. It's called Envirox.

It's a nanoparticle, 5 to 25 nanometers in diameter of Cerium Oxide. It requires no engine modifications, reduces fuel use by up to 11%, reduces CO2, hydrocarbon, and particulate emissions, and also cleans waste deposits from engines. It has an extremely low dose rate, requiring only 5-10 parts per million.

But of course, the one additive that really works, you can't get. The EPA hasn't allowed it to be used in the US although it's in use in Europe and Asia. There's also some kind of licensing dispute currently going on.