[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanqueray
[B]

As I posted a week or two back, Japan and Europe use different methods of calculating octane.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S2kRob
[B]The Japanese fuel comments are very interesting.

 

I'd just like to clarify my previous statement. The reason I thought US gas was not "high quality" was the high sulphur content in it compared to European gasoline. I have heard that this sulphur content is a big problem in going to a direct injection engine, a problem that Europe and Japan don't seem to have.

Secondly, I am aware of the different octane ratings, but all that octane is is a resistance to ignition. The higher the octane, the harder it is to ignite the fuel, thus you can run higher compression, more timing, more boost, etc. safely.

So the only other thing that makes gas "crap" are the amount of impurities or additives in it that take away from the specific combustion energy of the fuel.

I can't think of anything else.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by twohoos
[B]LewKeim,
Try http://www.patentdatabase.com.

 

Hehe, this is getting fun. I just read through patent # 5,124,045

Here is a quote at the end of the section discussing all the prior art (previous patents on similar items). Note that most of the prior art used electrically generated fields. There were 6-7 patents discussed going back to 1964.

"None of this art has been quantitatively shown to be effective and efficient in operation either to reduce pollution or to increase fuel burning efficiency. Most of the art is critical to install and operate, requiring tailor made fitting to particular models and fuel lines. Some of it requires external wiring and energy. None of the art effectively uses a magnetic field configuration in a manner that can adequately use the potential improvement possible with magnetic field treatment for either pollution minimization or fuel economy"

Nobody else's worked, but mine does. What do you want to bet the prior art patents have proof of their effectiveness attached?

And here is a quote about how it is important to install the magnet with the poles in the right orientation.

"The south pole S is marked for orientation downstream in the flow path 13. That is critical, since it has been found that the opposite orientation will reduce gas mileage and increase pollution. Thus, any magnetic field influences of opposite polarity in the vicinity of the installation or between it and the combustion site should be avoided"

And here is the breakdown on the magnetic strength of the system:

The characteristic magnetic properties of a preferred embodiment of the magnetic units are as follows:

For the alnico magnetic flux control members:

Residual induction--12,300 gauss

Coercive force--640 oersteds

For magneto-ceramic ferrite shunting magnets:

Residual induction--4,000 gauss

Coercive force--2,900 oersteds

Man, those are some powerful magnets!

And finally, test data from a Pennsylvania emissions center:


A series of comparative tests, all taken at a recently calibrated emission test system for the State of Pennsylvania on a 1984 Datsun 300Z with 90,000 miles, follow:


______________________________________
Test #1 Car without fuel line magnet
Idle Test:
CO 1.79% HC 344 PPM CO2 RPM 824
13.1%
Cruise Test
CO 2.47% HC 224 PPM CO2 RPM 2075
12.7%
Test #2 With diametrically opposed matched ceramic prior
art magnet set commercially available with
magnets disposed along length of fuel line--not
polarized for direction--apparently symmetricul in
either direction:
Idle Test:
CO 2.60% HC 373 PPM CO2 RPM 861
12.4%
Cruise Test:
CO 1.78% HC 191 PPM CO2 RPM 2139
12.8%
Test #3 With diametrically opposed magnets with south
pole directed into fuel line (commercially
available unit):
Idle Test:
CO 1.79% HC 349 PPM CO2 RPM 861
12.8%
Cruise Test:
CO 0.77% HC 113 PPM CO2 RPM 2334
13.0%
Test #4 With no magnetics to clear system for reference:
Idle Test:
CO 2.08% HC 344 PPM CO2 RPM 834
12.7%
Cruise Test:
CO 0.78% HC 178 PPM CO2 RPM 2050
12.8%
Test #5 With magnetic system of this invention south
pole downstream:
Idle Test:
CO 0.03% HC 28 PPM CO2 RPM 815
13.6%
Cruise Test:
CO 0.01% HC 14 PPM CO2 RPM 2073
13.6%
Test #6 With magnetic system of this invention south
pole upstream:
Idle Test:
CO 0.03% HC 126 PPM CO2 RPM 858
13.9%
Cruise Test:
CO 0.05% HC 33 PPM CO2 RPM 2271
13.7%


What should we learn from this? First, the USPTO will issue patents for things that probably shouldn't get them (look at all the business model patents issued during the Internet craze). A test at a state emissions center does provide conclusive proof of functionality. I can make results vary by 50% just by letting my catalytic converter cool off before starting a test. And if you look at the no magnetics retest, you'll see the car did substantially better than during its first run. Second, if this item really did work, California would have mandated it years ago :-)

Additionally, on other topics, U.S. gas does typically have higher sulfur content which tends to create some corrosion issues, among other things if the engine can't tolerate it (BMW V8 blocks a few years back). Also, Euro and JDM gas is rated with only one octane number while here in the U.S. we get a RON/MON average. However, premium gasoline overseas does usually have a higher octane, hence the ability to run more compression/boost in Japan, etc.

UL

 

How much is the difference? IIRC (which I probably don't), JDM models are rated at 250ps vs. 240hp in the US. 1ps is not equal to 1hp; I believe 1ps = .98xxxx hp. That means that the JDM models have 3 or 4 more hp, which isn't a problem requiring higher octane.

Heck, since Japan has a smaller climate range than the U.S., they should be able to dial in the JDM models with better horsepower (a Japanese car doesn't have to survive both Anchorage and Yuma, which should allow some further engine optimizations).

 

These are good posts. No rants, just technical data which allows those of us that know less chemistry to form educated opinions. Thanks LewKeim for taking the time to find patent information and thanks UL for posting and interpreting the data. This is cool, this is how we all help each other learn.

 

Ultimate Lurker...Enjoyed the read. I almost hate continuing this thread. But does not the data you presented show a major reduction of CO. Isn't that the outcome expected if the claims are true. Naturally the tests could be rigged in several ways but isn't it true that we now have corroborating documentation (US bonified) that there may be measurable effects from magnetic fields?

 

That's just the problem. You have testing from an uncorroborated and notoriously inaccurate source. There are all sorts of things you can do to help a car pass emissions (or fail them if you so choose). All the emissions tester does is put the car on the rollers and run it.

A true measure of performance would have been to submit the car to the EPA for a test using the cold start loop and extended driving. The EPA can precisely measure the amount of fuel consumed and the pollutants emitted. It would cost a few bucks ($5k, $10k?), but the end result would be hard to dispute (and would probably help sales).

Alternatively, you have to provide several corroborating sources of data. For example, if emissions results improved, hp went up and fuel mileage also increased in a controlled test, then even without a scientific testing center, the results would be more believable.

Finally, if you are dealing with a notoriously out of tune car, your test case may not even have been a constant. Again, note the dramatic difference between the first no magnet test and the second no magnet test later. Cars that fail emissions usually do so because the mixture is either rich or lean, or the cat is bad. Magnetizing the fuel, even if it alters it, would only affect emissions if it someone altered the necessary air/fuel ratio.

UL

 

Just throwing this marketing info out there to you dogs ---> http://www.racingcraft.com/js-products-sev.shtml

Any thoughts? What about the claim that Formula Nippon is the proving ground?

BTW, I'm encouraged by how civil and on topic this thread has been. Please remember to respect the intelligence of people that claim this SEV is effective -- even if you think they're wrong.