Motortrend article: GDiesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
1,746
Location
Rochester, NY
Article link.
Reads like an advertisement. Couldn't find any papers on it on Google Scholar.

This alternative fuel at least has a bit of science and testing behind it. As with many of these alternative fuels, it sounds great. Time will tell if there's anything to it.


xfilesbelieve.jpg
 
Sorry...the [censored] detector is blinking...the science doesn't make sense to me from a pure physics (BTU/Gallon) perspective...at 20% improvement based on what? "gas molecules to chemically bond with the liquid?"

Huh?

You added methane (one more carbon) to diesel (typically 14, but anywhere from 8-20 carbons) and you get 20% more energy and all the wonderful benefits, because you end up with a more uniform distribution of hydrocarbons? I'm not even convinced that the 250 temps would enable the reaction...much less result in more uniform hydrocarbons...

Snake oil.
 
Last edited:
The article appears to give a rather crude explanation for the process... clearly, the assertion that they are "causing gas molecules to chemically bond with the liquid" implies something entirely different than what is actually going on.

In actuality, the process they are describing seems to be similar to hydroisomerization (although not quite the same, since the GDiesel article claims they are using natural gas rather than hydrogen). My guess is that they found a way, using metal catalysts plus a slight amount of heat and pressure, to achieve a similar result using natural gas instead.

My guess is they end up turning ULSD into something more similar to Isopar M.

And since technically they would be 'rearranging' the molecular structure, they could now call it 'synthetic diesel' when they are done. They could thank Castrol for that.
 
Ahh, Number 2 diesel "soda". If you shake it, does it foam?
smile.gif


The energy content of a fuel is directly related to it's specific gravity. Gasoline and diesel have remarkably similar energy content by weight. However, when measured by the gallon, Diesel wins.

I suspect that this addition of natural gas is simply offsetting some of the energy content lost during the production of ULSD. I'd love to see some objective data. Some reports claim ULSD is down 7% in energy content. I suppose it varies by refinery, but it is universally agreed to be down on energy content.
 
I can do a controlled, precision fuel consumption test. I have access to the CDC/EPA research diesel. I can measure fuel consumption to 0.1 gram/time interval. It'll need to be a one shot, rather quick test, as I need to work it in between projects at the end of next week.

Here's what I propose:

The diesel is a 1.5L Isuzu powering a 12.5Kw generator. It is connected to a load bank that we can control the load from 250w-15Kw. The control diesel will be Shell ULSD. I'll run at 50% of rated sea level load, 6250 watts, which is a bit under 60% load at this altitude.

Measure density of both fuels at test temperature.

Warm up generator under no load, then operate for 20 minutes at load to stabilize temperatures. Switch to weighed fuel container and run for 1 hour at 6250 watts. Purge fuel lines. Switch to GDiesel and run for 20 minutes at 6250 watts to fully flush lines and stabilize temperatures. Switch to weighed fuel container and run for 1 hour.

There will be ~3L of fuel burned per hour. At 0.1 gram resolution that's 0.0033% resolution.

Anybody think that this test isn't robust enough to discern 0.1% differences in fuel consumption? Suggestions? Remember, I'm only going to have an afternoon to do this.

Ed
 
The article says "Without getting overly detailed about the patented ClearRefining catalytic process, it facilitates the attachment of hydrogen in natural gas to the carbon chain of diesel molecules."

Here's a link to some text files of patents bearing Gunnerman's name. You can use Google to view patents with the drawings.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fgunnerman%0D%0A&d=PTXT
 
Here is a link to pre-grant patent application publications bearing Gunnerman's name:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fgunnerman&d=PG01

The first one might be it: No. 20110163007
It's titled "NON-FRACTIONATION PROCESS FOR PRODUCTION OF LOW-BOILING FUEL FROM CRUDE OIL"

Goto:
http://www.google.com/patents
paste 20110163007 in the field, and it will pop up.

Definitely out of my area of expertise, if I have one at all...
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
I can do a controlled, precision fuel consumption test. I have access to the CDC/EPA research diesel. I can measure fuel consumption to 0.1 gram/time interval. It'll need to be a one shot, rather quick test, as I need to work it in between projects at the end of next week.

Here's what I propose:

The diesel is a 1.5L Isuzu powering a 12.5Kw generator. It is connected to a load bank that we can control the load from 250w-15Kw. The control diesel will be Shell ULSD. I'll run at 50% of rated sea level load, 6250 watts, which is a bit under 60% load at this altitude.

Measure density of both fuels at test temperature.

Warm up generator under no load, then operate for 20 minutes at load to stabilize temperatures. Switch to weighed fuel container and run for 1 hour at 6250 watts. Purge fuel lines. Switch to GDiesel and run for 20 minutes at 6250 watts to fully flush lines and stabilize temperatures. Switch to weighed fuel container and run for 1 hour.

There will be ~3L of fuel burned per hour. At 0.1 gram resolution that's 0.0033% resolution.

Anybody think that this test isn't robust enough to discern 0.1% differences in fuel consumption? Suggestions? Remember, I'm only going to have an afternoon to do this.

Ed

I'd really like to see this. In the linked article they reported 20-50% reduction in fuel consumption. I think your 0.1% resolution will be fine, and better in any case than the highly variable road vehicle figures they give.
 
Ed, I would really appreciate the test.

Different scenario, but there are diesel/propane conversions down here that offer 25% savings in diesel consumption, basically offing that the propane is free...the claim that this makes diesel last longer is prolly right, only if the NG is negated.
 
5 gallons of GDiesel procured at lunch. I'm hoping to get this done on Friday. It also turns out there is going to be a window in the GC-MS schedule on Wednesday. Fun, fun.

Shannow, we had a guy come through here with the answer to diesel emissions. It was a diesel powered afterburner. The claim was that it lowered emissions without effecting mpg. It worked after a fashion at reducing NOx, but for some reason the fellow just didn't grasp that the fuel burned by the afterburner had to be included in the mpg figures. In the case of the 1.5L Isuzu, the afterburner burned more fuel than the engine.

Ed
 
Coming up soon. The control sample is running as I type. I have specific gravity and calorimetry done. I'll have the consumption data later today. The GC-MS was being a bit cranky about being switched from thermal desorbtion to liquid mode. Hopefully I'll have that on Monday.

I'll post the results in a new thread in this section.

Ed
 
A quick update: I got the GC-MS data on Saturday. It was "interesting" to be sure. I re-ran the consumption test on Sunday to get an idea of the repeatability of the system. A new control from a different source and two new GDiesel samples from two different GDiesel branded stations was obtained on Monday. Testing of those samples is in progress.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top