Does anyone know anything about this device? http://www.rentar.com/ It is termed a 'fuel catalyst' and that it can reduce diesel fuel consumption on the order of 15% to 20%! Sounds like snake oil BUT, one never knows! Would much appreciate any input on this device if anyone is familiar with its working/non workings, etc. George
Rentar Fuel Catalyst
- Thread starter GeorgeCLS
- Start date
- Status
George,
I have no experience with this device. I have seen advertisements for in-line fuel catalysts on gas engines. On the gas powered vehicles, they were finally deemed not worthy of anything but relieving ones wallet.
My own personal judgment on the Rentar is that it is nothing more than an accumulator for the diesel fuel. It allows the air in the fuel (foam) to better disperse throughout the spectrum of operation. Much like an accumulator on a refrigerator. High press liquid input, low press output. (Not discussing the capillary operation) This only a guess on my part, and I am probably giving the Rentar to much credit for doing anything. I just don't buy the molecular modification or stabilization or alignment by static electricity or something to that effect.
Yes, the state of CA put some on their school buses, but they were free from Rentar, not purchased. Good sales gimmick as I noticed the State surely didn't purchase any for other buses.
I can run a can of diesel fuel cleaner through the injectors, change oil, and unless other mechanical problems are present, I can pass 99% of all opacity tests, snap or load.
The only thing I can't solve is the crappy diesel fuel sold in the U.S. Dirt, moisture, Phos. are the 3 that come to mind first. And the Rentar won't cure these, and I haven't started on the Cetane rip-offs.
I have no experience with this device. I have seen advertisements for in-line fuel catalysts on gas engines. On the gas powered vehicles, they were finally deemed not worthy of anything but relieving ones wallet.
My own personal judgment on the Rentar is that it is nothing more than an accumulator for the diesel fuel. It allows the air in the fuel (foam) to better disperse throughout the spectrum of operation. Much like an accumulator on a refrigerator. High press liquid input, low press output. (Not discussing the capillary operation) This only a guess on my part, and I am probably giving the Rentar to much credit for doing anything. I just don't buy the molecular modification or stabilization or alignment by static electricity or something to that effect.
Yes, the state of CA put some on their school buses, but they were free from Rentar, not purchased. Good sales gimmick as I noticed the State surely didn't purchase any for other buses.
I can run a can of diesel fuel cleaner through the injectors, change oil, and unless other mechanical problems are present, I can pass 99% of all opacity tests, snap or load.
The only thing I can't solve is the crappy diesel fuel sold in the U.S. Dirt, moisture, Phos. are the 3 that come to mind first. And the Rentar won't cure these, and I haven't started on the Cetane rip-offs.
I have 3 major customers that are seriously looking into the Rentar as fuel is the #1 cost of operation, the biggest check written monthly by a huge amount! Thank you for your insights! It just reeks of snake oil from the base description through the 'black box' rather incomplete description of what actually takes place.
George Morrison
George Morrison
I've used products with heavy oil that have achieved somewhat the same result that Rentar claims. I've used ultrasonic transducers (Volmar's Moletron http://www.volmar.it/link1.htm ) and chemical additives to break up agglomerations of components of the fuel into smaller bits that burn more cleanly. Both have worked for me...I've seen the results over several years, with the caveat that one must select the correct additive for the fuel at hand.
What Rentar says sounds good. Whether or not it works is something that needs to be determined. George, if one of your customers has an engine to install this on where they can accurately monitor the fuel consumption and engine and oil cleanliness, it might be worth a try. Rentar says that fuel savings might be something from 2% to 22%. I'd think that a savings from 2% to 5% would be worthwhile...depending of the cost of these gizmos.
Keep us updated.
Ken
What Rentar says sounds good. Whether or not it works is something that needs to be determined. George, if one of your customers has an engine to install this on where they can accurately monitor the fuel consumption and engine and oil cleanliness, it might be worth a try. Rentar says that fuel savings might be something from 2% to 22%. I'd think that a savings from 2% to 5% would be worthwhile...depending of the cost of these gizmos.
Keep us updated.
Ken
Ken,
The points you have stated are valid. The main difference I can see is that the system you used was an electrical system and the Rentar isn't. Also you keyed on one point, additives that you used.
The Rentar is $1495 for the unit. The unit is bi-directional and uses metallic and rare earth elements. Depending on the fuel used, the Rentar uses different Ingredients.
I will say this, if the Rentar is a truly an effective unit, I will go stand in the corner for a day. But for now, I stand by my previous post. The only addition, I think, Rentar uses slow dissolving chemicals with limited results.
The points you have stated are valid. The main difference I can see is that the system you used was an electrical system and the Rentar isn't. Also you keyed on one point, additives that you used.
The Rentar is $1495 for the unit. The unit is bi-directional and uses metallic and rare earth elements. Depending on the fuel used, the Rentar uses different Ingredients.
I will say this, if the Rentar is a truly an effective unit, I will go stand in the corner for a day. But for now, I stand by my previous post. The only addition, I think, Rentar uses slow dissolving chemicals with limited results.
Believe me, I am the last one to even look at devices such as this. Everything about this from its development in the technological center West Palm Beach, Fla. (also known as the birthplace of more than one scam).. In my 30+ years I have been through more than one fuel efficiency improver. The problems for my customers is that most of the equipment is very much affected by operator operation, loading and atmospheric conditions. Weekly and even monthly fuel consumption varies quite a bit just due to working conditions. I note the complete absence of any dynomometer results, fuel analysis results, etc. All their testing is indeed real world but with a lot of potential variability, as with the potential testing sites with my related companies.
I am going to try and obtain a unit for a 'before & after' dyno test on a vehicle with a very complete dyno history, for starters..
I had great problems even writing my first post on this subject as there are so many areas of the Rentar that just do not fit; i.e. the lack of recognized technical papers, professional recognition, etc. I contacted 3 major fuel companies, speaking with their research folks in each case, never heard of the Rentar and an incredulous "What?" with the description..
Like something in the back of Popular Science.....
George
I am going to try and obtain a unit for a 'before & after' dyno test on a vehicle with a very complete dyno history, for starters..
I had great problems even writing my first post on this subject as there are so many areas of the Rentar that just do not fit; i.e. the lack of recognized technical papers, professional recognition, etc. I contacted 3 major fuel companies, speaking with their research folks in each case, never heard of the Rentar and an incredulous "What?" with the description..
Like something in the back of Popular Science.....
George
That would make sense. You can't cause a turbulent flow through an injector, especially with the unit placed on the input side of the pump.
Bob, from my vague understanding of the vague technology, they are using a catalyst of some sort (rare earth) that affects the moledular agglomeration to enable more complete combusion. It is not based on the "vortex" shake up the fuel type thing but an actual dispersement of the molecules, via catalyst, someone similar to what happens in an exhaust catalyst. Moreover, wreaks of snake oil but I have to try and get to the bottom of this as I have been charged with that job by several potential end users.
I will keep everyone posted on my findings, whatever they are??
George
I will keep everyone posted on my findings, whatever they are??
George
Bob,
When I've bought fuel by truckload or greater quantities the gallonage has always been adjusted for the specific gravity (and temperature compensated) when the bill was figured. Heavier fuel produces more BTUs, so these price adjustments compensate for varying gravity fuel. The best way to buy fuel is by weight, and test engines measure the fuel consumption in grams of fuel per hp/hr. I've seen fuel tanks of test engines where the tank is mounted on a scale--there is no meter, just the scale weight of the fuel consumed.
Ken
When I've bought fuel by truckload or greater quantities the gallonage has always been adjusted for the specific gravity (and temperature compensated) when the bill was figured. Heavier fuel produces more BTUs, so these price adjustments compensate for varying gravity fuel. The best way to buy fuel is by weight, and test engines measure the fuel consumption in grams of fuel per hp/hr. I've seen fuel tanks of test engines where the tank is mounted on a scale--there is no meter, just the scale weight of the fuel consumed.
Ken
One of our reps picked one up and from reading the installation paperwork and the theory they described I wouldn't even go that far.
The main thing that they were discussing was that it creates a different flow through to the injectors. Ok, here's the mechanic talking again, to install this unit it goes before the injector pump not after. The flow being changed (simular to the effect of the tornado used in air intake systems,) is suppose to give better atomization. All fine but the fuel pump has a chamber where fuel resides from the fuel input line where this unit would be installed, then it will take the fuel in the pump and pump it out to the injectors and if you look into what an injector looks like, there is small chambers in the injectors that collect the fuel from the pressure, and once the injector is opened, it releases the fuel through the nozzel.. point is, there is no way that trying to affect the flow by turbulating the fuel before the pump let alone the injector can control or change the effectiveness of fuel efficientcy.
A better way to establish how to increase fuel economy is to look at the specific gravity of the types of fuel they are using. If it is around say a 34,35 for a # 1, they will be getting the most for that quality of fuel but on the other hand they are getting say a 29 or 30, on a #2 fuel, then they are really fighting the fuel and are suffering mileage increases. This is where a good fuel additive will really help increase the performance. I use a hydrometer setup specificly for looking at specific gravity on diesel fuel to make a determination as to if they are getting the most out of their fuel. This will provide them a much further benifet scientificly than some gizmo that claims to either change the structure on a molecule with some magic metals or change the flow patter.
The main thing that they were discussing was that it creates a different flow through to the injectors. Ok, here's the mechanic talking again, to install this unit it goes before the injector pump not after. The flow being changed (simular to the effect of the tornado used in air intake systems,) is suppose to give better atomization. All fine but the fuel pump has a chamber where fuel resides from the fuel input line where this unit would be installed, then it will take the fuel in the pump and pump it out to the injectors and if you look into what an injector looks like, there is small chambers in the injectors that collect the fuel from the pressure, and once the injector is opened, it releases the fuel through the nozzel.. point is, there is no way that trying to affect the flow by turbulating the fuel before the pump let alone the injector can control or change the effectiveness of fuel efficientcy.
A better way to establish how to increase fuel economy is to look at the specific gravity of the types of fuel they are using. If it is around say a 34,35 for a # 1, they will be getting the most for that quality of fuel but on the other hand they are getting say a 29 or 30, on a #2 fuel, then they are really fighting the fuel and are suffering mileage increases. This is where a good fuel additive will really help increase the performance. I use a hydrometer setup specificly for looking at specific gravity on diesel fuel to make a determination as to if they are getting the most out of their fuel. This will provide them a much further benifet scientificly than some gizmo that claims to either change the structure on a molecule with some magic metals or change the flow patter.
MolaKule
Staff member
Theoretically, this device sounds like it should work; but what catalysts would function to oxygenate the fuel without being consumed themselves?
If the device does oxygenate the fuel, then the conbustion temperatures should rise, but where in the literature does it show the device to have raised combustion temps?
Many questions!
If the device does oxygenate the fuel, then the conbustion temperatures should rise, but where in the literature does it show the device to have raised combustion temps?
Many questions!
Today I received 2 3 inch binders with the full test results from California Air Review Board and the results clearly show a significant reduction in exhaust emissions for the Cummins mechanical injection system engine. Also in the numerous test runs there was a slight increase in horsepower for a given fuel flow...
Rentar does admit that state of the art electronic engines do not display the same level of exhaust emission reduction or HP increase but still do to a justifyable degree..
Again, it sure looks like strings and mirrors but when a company is spending over $2,000,000 a year for diesel fuel, a 5% decrease becomes a very significant number indeed.
I will keep all posted on progress, informationally....
George Morrison
Rentar does admit that state of the art electronic engines do not display the same level of exhaust emission reduction or HP increase but still do to a justifyable degree..
Again, it sure looks like strings and mirrors but when a company is spending over $2,000,000 a year for diesel fuel, a 5% decrease becomes a very significant number indeed.
I will keep all posted on progress, informationally....
George Morrison
George
Have you looked at FPC (Fuel Performance Catalyst)
www.fpc1.com Hundreds of millions of litres of fuel are treated here with it every year, even the oil companies buy it. Montana Rail Link (MRL)averaged 7.7% reduction in fuel use and 26.9% smoke reduction after 2yrs testing/evaluation. It's for diesel/gas engines. 16yrs test results from field/laboratory evaluation in the U.S, Australia, England, Holland, Italy using the Carbon Mass Balance method to determine fuel savings and reduction of emmissions.
s
Have you looked at FPC (Fuel Performance Catalyst)
www.fpc1.com Hundreds of millions of litres of fuel are treated here with it every year, even the oil companies buy it. Montana Rail Link (MRL)averaged 7.7% reduction in fuel use and 26.9% smoke reduction after 2yrs testing/evaluation. It's for diesel/gas engines. 16yrs test results from field/laboratory evaluation in the U.S, Australia, England, Holland, Italy using the Carbon Mass Balance method to determine fuel savings and reduction of emmissions.
s
Originally Posted By: sprintman
George
Have you looked at FPC (Fuel Performance Catalyst)
www.fpc1.com Hundreds of millions of litres of fuel are treated here with it every year, even the oil companies buy it. Montana Rail Link (MRL)averaged 7.7% reduction in fuel use and 26.9% smoke reduction after 2yrs testing/evaluation. It's for diesel/gas engines. 16yrs test results from field/laboratory evaluation in the U.S, Australia, England, Holland, Italy using the Carbon Mass Balance method to determine fuel savings and reduction of emmissions.
s
I've used it and had good results with it. They also have recently been published in Energy.
George
Have you looked at FPC (Fuel Performance Catalyst)
www.fpc1.com Hundreds of millions of litres of fuel are treated here with it every year, even the oil companies buy it. Montana Rail Link (MRL)averaged 7.7% reduction in fuel use and 26.9% smoke reduction after 2yrs testing/evaluation. It's for diesel/gas engines. 16yrs test results from field/laboratory evaluation in the U.S, Australia, England, Holland, Italy using the Carbon Mass Balance method to determine fuel savings and reduction of emmissions.
s
I've used it and had good results with it. They also have recently been published in Energy.
Every volume of fuel contains a specific amount of energy. No matter what brand of hocus pocus you try, you can NOT increase the amount of power that is already present in the fuel.
Originally Posted By: Loobed
Every volume of fuel contains a specific amount of energy. No matter what brand of hocus pocus you try, you can NOT increase the amount of power that is already present in the fuel.
While what you said is very true, the fact remains that we do NOT use every bit of that available energy.
That's what all these strange devices are trying to do.
Every volume of fuel contains a specific amount of energy. No matter what brand of hocus pocus you try, you can NOT increase the amount of power that is already present in the fuel.
While what you said is very true, the fact remains that we do NOT use every bit of that available energy.
That's what all these strange devices are trying to do.
Last edited:
- Status
