I am hoping that they can take before and after pictures of the combustion chambers using a scope.
Andrew
That would be very interesting. Not sure you'll want to shell out the $several hundred to pull plugs twice and look around, but that is the kind of unequivocal data one needs- not the old 'runs great, try it'...
Oh, you are wrong- these engines can optimize spark timing and benefit from up to 96 octane, (R+M)/2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Stephen
It can’t hurt and for $140 or so, it is worth a try, especially given the proven improvements and the other, more costly options available to you.
Here is the big question:
Has anyone, any where done an INDEPENDENT test and looked at combustion chamber deposits?
Not fuel rail or injector deposits, but combustion chamber. After 20 minutes. Please send us links to these tests.
I have no doubt there will be plenty of dealers who will sell this service. Duh. They make money, and people are gullible. Afterall they sell Nitrogen tire fills with 95% nitrogen generators…
I am hoping that they can take before and after pictures of the combustion chambers using a scope.
Andrew
That would be very interesting. Not sure you'll want to shell out the $several hundred to pull plugs twice and look around, but that is the kind of unequicocal data one needs- not the old 'runs great, try it'...
I would be surprised if Terraclean themselves don't have a few scopes. You might be allowed to borrow that for a 'before' and 'after' picture session if you ask nicely?
I am the Product Manager for Terraclean and was made aware of this discussion thread.
Welcome !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Stephen
Secondly, the Terraclean machine zaps the fuel with a negative charge before it enters the engine and this breaks the fuel droplets up into smaller droplets. Essentially each droplet gets broken down into thousands of nano-droplets of fuel. To address the very knowledgeable posting by “erkq”, it is more accurately the fuel droplets, not the molecules that become smaller.
How does it do this? Your explanation of aliphatic / aromatics sounded feasible, and I believed you right up to the point you started talking about negatively charging liquid hydrocarbons. To negatively charge something, you have to add electrons. I believe this is next to impossible to do with hydrocarbon liquids as to my knowledge they have nowhere within their molecular chains which could bind free electrons. I know you can get free electrons in impure hydrocarbon liquids, but then you're only talking about extremely low levels (see link) - surely nowhere near the levels where it would have any effect on droplet size on squirting through a fuel injector (which itself is metal and earthed, and would tend to neutralise any free electrons carried in any fluid passing through it).
During the combustion process, the heat breaks the carbon bonds and can create momentarily positively-charged carbon atoms (carbocations or carbonium ions) within the molecule.
Each fuel droplet retains the negative charge as it enters the combustion chamber and attracts the positively-charged carbon deposits off the engine surfaces and oxidizes them into a vapor within the combustion chamber.
Even if positively charged carbon atoms existed in the combustion chamber, they would surely exist on the scale of microseconds before they would capture electrons from the gases or metal surfaces around them to become carbon atoms. If you're talking about removing existing carbon deposits from the cylinder head and pistons, which will have the full complement of electrons and be charge neutral, then positive or negatively charged fuel (if it were even possible to charge fuel this way) would surely make no difference.
Anyway, isn't carbon build up on cylinder heads and tops of pistons more likely to be due to condensation of carbon vapour on the relatively cool surfaces under pressure than due to any other effect?
However putting my skepticisim aside for a second .............
I can believe that your engine treatment does remove carbon deposits, but I would believe that it did it by burning hot - damn hot. Hot enough in fact to cause the engine to literally burn the carbon deposits out (i.e. temporarily increase the temperature in the combusion chamber so that the deposits get hot enough that they react with free oxygen and turn into CO and CO2, but do so while stopping detonation/pinking from burning holes in the pistons).
Bottom line is that if your system works, then people will buy it even if the explanation is as simple as "it burns hotter than the flames of hell and damnation itself" without any of the nano / ion / charge / carbonium stuff.
First of all we are talking about electrostatic charge here (at microscopic level), not ionosation (at the atomic level).
Have you ever heard of Millakan´s Oil droplet experiment? He was the first person to measure the elemental charge of an electron by charging very tiny oil droplets. (and thean balancing the gravity with a strong vertical electric field. Knowing the droplet size and weight as well as the electric field strength, and the fact that each droplet could only accept an integer number of electrons, he could calculate the elemental charge)
If it worked on Millikan´s oil droplets, why couldn´t droplets of lighter hydrocarbons be statically charged too?
This is assuming the charge is applied _after_ the droplets are formed.
On the other hand, if the charge ("zap") is applied before passing the injector ports (or equivialent external device feeding fuel droplet into the air-stream) I too would be extremely sceptical to the claim of maintaining charge, especially at the very low flow rate of the fuel going into the engine.
(If we were discussing fuel going into a ram-jet at supersonic speed, I would be more open minded...)
First of all we are talking about electrostatic charge here (at microscopic level), not ionosation (at the atomic level).
Actually, Terraclean seems to be talking about both electrostatic charge i.e. adding free electrons to the hydrocarbon fluid and ionisation of carbon atoms during the combustion process as well. It's typical of pseudo science explanations to obfuscate and confuse by mixing terms, and usually throwing in things like static electricity, magnets and gyroscopes and such like - things which the layman doesn't understand well at the best of times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidS
Have you ever heard of Millakan´s Oil droplet experiment? He was the first person to measure the elemental charge of an electron by charging very tiny oil droplets. (and thean balancing the gravity with a strong vertical electric field. Knowing the droplet size and weight as well as the electric field strength, and the fact that each droplet could only accept an integer number of electrons, he could calculate the elemental charge)
Yes ... I am a Ph.D. Physicist, and as a student, I actually performed Millikan's oil drop experiment.
For others who are not students of physics, see this explanation of the experiment. You'll see that the oil drops pick up a charge after they have been turned into droplets by passing through a charged plate, and that the charge on the droplets is changed by ionising the air around them with x-rays.
If it worked on Millikan´s oil droplets, why couldn´t droplets of lighter hydrocarbons be statically charged too?
You're at slightly crossed purposes. Did you see the oil drops in that experiment repel each other at all? Nope - neither did I. So not sure what you mean then by 'If it worked'. He suspended oil droplets carrying a weak electric charge in an external electric field due, and then changed the charge a few electrons at a time using x-rays. The oil droplets did not carry nearly enough charge to repel other oil droplets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidS
This is assuming the charge is applied _after_ the droplets are formed.
On the other hand, if the charge ("zap") is applied before passing the injector ports (or equivialent external device feeding fuel droplet into the air-stream) I too would be extremely sceptical to the claim of maintaining charge, especially at the very low flow rate of the fuel going into the engine.
Exactly .... Take a look at their website - they show a machine which claims to add this charge to the special fuel before it enters the engine.
It states (and I quote) "An external unit was developed that would inject the charged molecules into combustion engines removing carbon more efficiently than competing products"
If you could replace the fuel injectors with something which adds charge to the fuel droplets as they form, then I believe it might cause the droplets to repel each other, but even then I don't believe it would cause smaller droplets to form - highly charged oil droplets (even if it were possible for them to carry a high charge, which it's not) would not spontaneously split apart.
And anyway, this is not what Terraclean is claiming to be doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidS
(If we were discussing fuel going into a ram-jet at supersonic speed, I would be more open minded...)
Then I would also tend to agree, but powerful as the S62 engine is, it aint no scramjet
1Likes
Linear Mode
