Internal-combustion engines – Charge forming device – Combustible mixture ionization – ozonation – or electrolysis
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-16
2002-11-05
McMahon, Marguerite (Department: 3747)
Internal-combustion engines
Charge forming device
Combustible mixture ionization, ozonation, or electrolysis
Reexamination Certificate
active
06474315
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF INVENTION
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to a method and device for the transmission and emission of high energy photons for the purpose of dissociation of target molecules, such as hydrocarbon-based fuels. In particular, it relates to a device which may be positioned in an internal combustion engine's fuel line and/or air intakes immediately prior to the target molecule's introduction into the carburetor or fuel injection system; and an associated process which results in far more complete combustion, which in turn results in more engine output per unit measure of fuel and decreased quantities of airborne toxic emissions.
2. Description of Invention Background
Combustion engines are well known devices. The combustion process which takes place in these engines contains many inefficiencies. Not only do combustion engines fail to allow complete combustion of the fuel, they also produce many end products which are harmful, if not toxic, to the environment.
Although many improvements to the combustion systems utilized over the past ten years have increased the efficiency of, and decreased toxic emissions from, combustion sources, there is room for further improvement. The main improvements to internal combustion engines have to do with the fuel-air mixture and turbulence caused in the passage of the mixture from the venturi to the combustion chamber. Another improvement has resulted from new injection systems and fuel-air dispersion patterns in the combustion chamber. Yet another improvement is the use of multistage ignition and lean mixes of fuel to air ratios. Each of these improvements has helped reduce emissions and, in some cases, also increased engine output. Unfortunately, each of these improvements has only marginally improved the emission situation; they have had no significant impact on reducing hazardous outputs.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,195,606 issued to Tom Wallis, Jr. (the “Wallis patent”) discloses a device which affects the oxygen in ambient air being introduced into an internal combustion engine. This device, however, is not effective when utilized with relatively new engines. The Wallis device was found to produce, on average, 6% fuel savings and 40%-60% reductions of toxic airborne emissions, when utilized with pre-1986 model year engines. Later model engines, post-1986 model years, produced no significant fuel economy savings. When utilized on large engines (+200 bhp), the fairly fragile units sometimes fail when subjected to engine backfire, which destroys the unit. This problem, coupled with the relatively high price of the device, resulted in a need to develop alternative technologies.
Modern engines process air differently today than they did fifteen years ago, about the time that the Wallis device was developed. Today, air must undergo dramatic changes in both temperature and pressure. These changes result from the turbochargers and intercoolers commercially in use in today's combustion systems. The products formed in this process to affect air are highly unstable. Under adverse conditions, such as severe temperature and pressure changes, much of the affected air reverts to its original ambient form, therefore providing only minimal effect upon the combustion reaction. Thus, the Wallis device is ineffective in modern engines due to the nature of the reactants (ambient air). Air, being mostly nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen when ionized, breaks down into atoms of each molecule. These atoms and/or ions will recombine into their molecular forms, O
2
, H
2
and N
2
, or form various other molecular compounds, such as water, ammonia and other non-combustion assisting molecules, if placed under the stress of increased pressure and temperature.
The main reasons that Wallis-based products prove to be less effective are threefold: (1) the relatively low density of air, when compared to liquids; (2) the relative speed of the air moving through the Wallis device, and (3) the amount of air being modified by the Wallis device is a very small percentage also due to the amount of air passing within the effective distance of the radiating device. The ultraviolet light source disclosed in the Wallis patent has been found to have an effective transmission distance of less than one centimeter. Any air which passes through Wallis device without traveling closer than one centimeter will remain unaffected; meaning none of the oxygen contained within that volume of air could or would be changed to an activated form of oxygen. The first reason for ineffectiveness is due to the number of molecules which could be affected per unit measure. When this is coupled with the problem of the velocity of the air, the number of affected molecules per cubic centimeter per second is smaller (by a factor of no less than 10
4
) than it would be if the same molecules were in liquid form and traveling through the device at one atmosphere of pressure. The latter is the most constraining of the problems posed for the Wallis device's effectiveness.
The Wallis device works on non-combustible molecules, eliminating the concern and risk of an explosion due to any heat generated during the Wallis process. However, it does not address or teach how to create a more efficient process without inducing an explosion or fire.
Another technology known in the industry as Combustion Efficiency Management Catalyst (“CEM-Cat”) is a passive catalyst which fits on the fuel line prior to the fuel's introduction into the fuel injectors or carburetor. The CEM-Cat is said to improve fuel economy by 10-12% and decrease emissions [carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
) and total hydrocarbons (THC's)] by 20-40% for each category. The weaknesses of the CEM-Cat, however, are associated with the types of fuels which may be affected, the finite lifespan of the catalyst, the variances of effectiveness among different fuels in various applications and the susceptibility to bacterial contamination. It works only upon liquid fuels, and the effects vary widely with the fuel and the engine applications and configurations. The lifespan of the CEM-Cat is finite, once exposed to the fuel. An additional drawback is that the CEM-Cat in diesel applications may not be removed from the fuel, without developing bacteria, which causes the catalyst to no longer function as a catalyst.
CEM-Cat has a limited ability to modify fuel in such a way as to improve the combustibility of the fuel without any active parts or components. Although the CEM-Cat's effect is endothermic, the resulting reaction does not produce sufficient quantities of beneficial products to consistently affect engine and emission performance. Due to the nature of the catalyst, this product would require significantly greater mass and weight to achieve a consistent result. The necessary mass and weight would be prohibitive to current engine applications.
One solution to the incomplete combustion problems experienced in combustion systems is to induce an endothermic reaction by adding energy to the reactants, without inducing an exothermic reaction. However, problems with this process include: how to add energy to the volatile reactants without causing a fire or explosion, where to place the unit to maximize the effectiveness of the modified reactants and how to construct the units at an acceptable cost.
Of major concern is how to affect the volatile reactants without causing an exothermic chain reaction (an explosion). An exothermic reaction could result from adding energy to the fuel (rising fuel temperatures) or from the heat due to the method of operation of possible electromagnetic generators. Any increase in temperature within the fuel results in increased energy; however, increased fuel temperatures often decrease the combustibility of the fuel. Diesel, for example, will actually combust with less efficiency if the fuel is heated above a specific temperature. This is another reason that intercoolers are utilized with turbochargers; the intercoolers actually reduce the heat generated due to the inc
Baker Bruce G.
Chown Frank G.
Hatcher Edmun J.
Sadkin Martin J.
Sweek Kent C.
International Combustion Enhancement Corp.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
McMahon Marguerite
LandOfFree
Electron stimulation via photon emitting radiation does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Electron stimulation via photon emitting radiation, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Electron stimulation via photon emitting radiation will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2989116