carbon flow fuel catylist

[hobbit555]

anyone had any experience of this


http://www.carbonflo.com/
Was talking to an engineer the other day He said it increases fuel economy cleans carbon out of engine, frees up older tight engines. Aparrently in the early stages of its use you do need to keep an eye on your oil pressure as oil filters clog up.

Was wondering of anybody has used this either outboard or deisel inboard

Damian

[codprawn]

A catalyst is something which is NOT supposed to react with the product it comes into contact with - it remains unchanged.

Tin as an additive in petrol can be beneficial but with a catalyst no tin will end up in the fuel.

In other words it's a load of crap!!!

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by hobbit555

anyone had any experience of this


http://www.carbonflo.com/
Was talking to an engineer the other day He said it increases fuel economy cleans carbon out of engine, frees up older tight engines. Aparrently in the early stages of its use you do need to keep an eye on your oil pressure as oil filters clog up.

Was wondering of anybody has used this either outboard or deisel inboard

Damian

Are you sure he was an engineer? I wouldn't let anyone work on an engine that was fooled by that! Everything on the carbonflo site is complete bollocks designed to hook double glazing salesmen.

A catalyst needs to be present at the point of reaction (ie the fuel burn) to actually do anything. As the 'carbonflo' thingy sits in the fuel tank and is 'never used up' then it's impossible for it to do anything.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

A catalyst is something which is NOT supposed to react with the product it comes into contact with - it remains unchanged.

Tin as an additive in petrol can be beneficial but with a catalyst no tin will end up in the fuel.

In other words it's a load of crap!!!

Codprawn, lets be clear I am not saying this system does or does not work - but what you have written is a load of crap!

Catalysts can react with the product - they just get regenerated - so at the end of the process you have the same amount of catalyst as at the start. You are suggesting catalysts are inert - which is bollox. If that were the case the Catalytic converter in your car would be pointless. Rather the CO reacts on the catalyst to form CO2.

If you actually read their claims - they don't suggest the tin ends up in the fuel. They quite rightly suggest that tin can catalyse organic chemical reactions (as a heterogeneous catalyst the molecules in the fuel become temporarily bound to the surface of the tin, undergo a chemical reaction (which by being bound to the surface of the tin has a lower activation energy than it would without the tin).

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

A catalyst needs to be present at the point of reaction (ie the fuel burn) to actually do anything. As the 'carbonflo' thingy sits in the fuel tank and is 'never used up' then it's impossible for it to do anything.

It is quite reasonable that it can modify the chemical structure of the fuel itself to make it burn more efficiently in the engine (whether it works - or the modified fuel can do any harm (e.g. to seals on fuel pumps) is another issue).

But as I said to codders - I am not claiming this works - just that their pseudo science is not quite as much nonsense as being suggested here.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Polwart

It is quite reasonable that it can modify the chemical structure of the fuel itself to make it burn more efficiently in the engine (whether it works - or the modified fuel can do any harm (e.g. to seals on fuel pumps) is another issue).

No it's not.

The product of a reaction (unless it's had heat input in certain conditions) will always be less reactive at room temperature than the component parts.
All a catalyst will do is to reduce the amount of energy needed for that reaction to take place.

Ergo, all this device can produce (unless it's the catalyst in a fairly rapid endothermic reaction) is a fuel with less energy...


And I agree, it's pseudoscience.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

The product of a reaction (unless it's had heat input in certain conditions) will always be less reactive at room temperature than the component parts.

I don't think you mean reactive there - since reactive is a "relative" term it depends what it is reacting with - e.g. hydrogen + oxygen --> water . But water is more reactive with some things (e.g. sodium) than either hydrogen or oxygen.

I guess what you were suggesting was that the product of a reaction will have a lower free energy/heat of formation than the reactants. That is not always the case - as you refer to yourself, endothermic reactions result in products with higher heat of formation than the reagents. Indeed a catalyst would be particularly helpful in sustaining such a reaction without heating.

All a catalyst will do is to reduce the amount of energy needed for that reaction to take place.

agreed

Ergo, all this device can produce (unless it's the catalyst in a fairly rapid endothermic reaction) is a fuel with less energy...

even if that were the case it doesn't mean that the catalyst is not having an effect on the fuel or even (potentially) that the modified fuel is more efficient. As an example, if the modified fuel has 2% less energy but is >2% more effective at releasing that energy in a controlled way then you gain efficiency. Although they don't explicitily say so on their website it sounds like they are implying an increase in octane value, if that results in more controlled combustion it is not implausible that you actually get more energy out (bear in mind that in normal combustion there are unburnt hydrocarbons and CO (which can be combusted to CO2) coming out the exhaust - if you can effeciently burn them in the cylinder you can get more energy out.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Codprawn, lets be clear I am not saying this system does or does not work - but what you have written is a load of crap!

Catalysts can react with the product - they just get regenerated - so at the end of the process you have the same amount of catalyst as at the start. You are suggesting catalysts are inert - which is bollox. If that were the case the Catalytic converter in your car would be pointless. Rather the CO reacts on the catalyst to form CO2.

If you actually read their claims - they don't suggest the tin ends up in the fuel. They quite rightly suggest that tin can catalyse organic chemical reactions (as a heterogeneous catalyst the molecules in the fuel become temporarily bound to the surface of the tin, undergo a chemical reaction (which by being bound to the surface of the tin has a lower activation energy than it would without the tin).

I don't see the word "inert" in anything I have written.

I always thought this satement was true "A catalyst is a substance that increases the speed of a chemical reaction without being consumed by the reaction."

A true catalyst remains unchanged by the reaction which is what I said.

I also didn't say the tin ends up in the fuel - in fact the only way it would work is if the tin DID end up in the fuel.

So you see maybe it's not me whose spouting crap after all..............

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by codprawn

In other words it's a load of crap!!!

I think so too. Here is another idea:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-For...QQcmdZViewItem

Don't you think the car manufacturers would fit these as standard if they were effective ?

Pete

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I think so too. Here is another idea:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-For...QQcmdZViewItem

Don't you think the car manufacturers would fit these as standard if they were effective ?

Pete

Exactly - things like these have been around for many years.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

I don't see the word "inert" in anything I have written.

The relevant definition of inert is: Not readily reactive with other elements; forming few or no chemical compounds.

you wrote:

A catalyst is something which is NOT supposed to react with the product it comes into contact with

hence I said you were implying it was inert. The catalyst has to react (in some way) with one of the chemicals otherwise it can not facilitate the reaction.

I always thought this satement was true "A catalyst is a substance that increases the speed of a chemical reaction without being consumed by the reaction."

That is correct - the distinction is not reacting and not being consumed are NOT the same thing.

I also didn't say the tin ends up in the fuel - in fact the only way it would work is if the tin DID end up in the fuel.

and that is part of my disagreement with you - if the tin catalyses a reaction with the fuel - which modifies the fuel then it can change its combustion characteristics. The tin itself would not have to enter the combustion chamber to potentially make it burn differently.

[Pete7]

Watched "Myth Busters" on sat TV do an interesting programme on four of these all claiming wonders. And the result of their tests - no measureable improvement. Probably the best way to save money is.... not to fit one of these in the first place.

Anyone who wants to try the magnets could do worse than take an old hard drive apart, some great fidge magnets inside

Pete

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I think so too. Here is another idea:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-For...QQcmdZViewItem

Don't you think the car manufacturers would fit these as standard if they were effective ?

Pete

Pete you are probably right. Or the oil industry would fit them to the pumps (assuming the effect was stable) and offer you the option of paying an extra 5p per L for "super fuel".

I work in a different industry that is full of such "fairy dust" inventions which will prevent this or improve that. However whilst most of the genuine professionals in the industry publicly dismiss whichever magic magnets, catalysts and electric fields are used to solve our problems as being non scientific nonsence (there is even less scientific explanation than with these things) - there is also an acceptance that sometimes they do seem to make a difference. No one knows why and they have rarely been installed in a particularly scientifically robust way - but there is something happening. It might just be a placebo effect.

Perhaps in this case either "you" are thinking about fuel ecconomy and so drive more carefully or perhaps you do more maintainence or something? Or even you just believe you spending less on fuel - and that might make boating more fun for some people.

But using poor science to slag off someones technology doesn't help clear up the issue. The original questioner was asking if anyone had tried one - so far no one here has come forward and probably anyone who has - will now been put off coming forward (as if they say it works you will all call him mad and if they say it didn't you all laugh at him for being stupid enough to get sucked in by the marketing blurb).

[codprawn]

I remember a funny little story in a boat mag years ago. it went something like this.

I bought some teflon oil treatment which will save me 20% of the fuel I use. Then I got hold of some super fuel treatment which will save me 25%. My new prop will save me another 20%. My fancy new sparkplugs will save me 15%. The latest high voltage coil will save me another 10% and for good measure I have fitted a new carb wwhich will save me another 20%.

I took the boat out for the first time yesterday and it went like a bomb. Quite literally. I looked in the bilges only to find the boat was full of petrol - it had been gushing out of the tank breathers..................

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I think so too. Here is another idea:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-For...QQcmdZViewItem

Don't you think the car manufacturers would fit these as standard if they were effective ?

Pete

I found one of the magnet thingys in a bucket of bike parts I bought as a job lot so I thought I'd try it on the boat-not expecting any results. Guess what. No difference.

[Limey Linda]

Just put a couple of asprins in the tank. It will make you feel better.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Polwart

I don't think you mean reactive there - since reactive is a "relative" term it depends what it is reacting with - e.g. hydrogen + oxygen --> water . But water is more reactive with some things (e.g. sodium) than either hydrogen or oxygen.

I guess what you were suggesting was that the product of a reaction will have a lower free energy/heat of formation than the reactants. That is not always the case - as you refer to yourself, endothermic reactions result in products with higher heat of formation than the reagents. Indeed a catalyst would be particularly helpful in sustaining such a reaction without heating.

agreed
even if that were the case it doesn't mean that the catalyst is not having an effect on the fuel or even (potentially) that the modified fuel is more efficient. As an example, if the modified fuel has 2% less energy but is >2% more effective at releasing that energy in a controlled way then you gain efficiency. Although they don't explicitily say so on their website it sounds like they are implying an increase in octane value, if that results in more controlled combustion it is not implausible that you actually get more energy out (bear in mind that in normal combustion there are unburnt hydrocarbons and CO (which can be combusted to CO2) coming out the exhaust - if you can effeciently burn them in the cylinder you can get more energy out.

Ok OK! Without looking at the specifics it's possible-though extremely unlikely.

So, how does it miraculously improve diesel then?

Incidentally, the websiteb even contradicts itself in the WW2 fighter tech bit. It refers to a tin additive rather than a catalyst.

I particularly like this bit:-

"If any customer is not completely satisfied with the product after 90 days, it can be returned for a full refund of the purchase price."

That's assuming they can get it out of their fuel tank...

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

"If any customer is not completely satisfied with the product after 90 days, it can be returned for a full refund of the purchase price." That's assuming they can get it out of their fuel tank...

and find an address on the website to send it back to always makes me suspicious if there is no address.

Actually I think under lab conditions it is possible to show that a magnet can improve the fuel economy, but its a tiny amount and very difficult to repeat in the real world.

Pete

[Jono]

Originally Posted by codprawn

I always thought this satement was true "A catalyst is a substance that increases the speed of a chemical reaction without being consumed by the reaction."

"Googlescience"......my favourite branch of science.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Pete7

and find an address on the website to send it back to always makes me suspicious if there is no address.

Actually I think under lab conditions it is possible to show that a magnet can improve the fuel economy, but its a tiny amount and very difficult to repeat in the real world.

Pete

I was under the impression that hydrocarbons are uncharged particles there's actually no way for a magnet to have any action on them.

Still, enough on the subject from me before Mr Carboflo turns up on here and tries to sell us some snake oil and justify his existence.