Patent Application
20080295391
The invention relates to additives for motor fuels that improve combustion engine performance, especially in terms of efficiency and emissions. The invention also relates to additives for lubricants that improve performance of both ferrous and non-ferrous metal components of engines, guns, or other machinery. The invention may also relate to additives for cutting fluids used in machining and fabricating, as well as mining and other similar cutting, shearing, and grinding applications that benefit from ease of cutting and lower temperatures. The invention may also relate to additives for pour point depressants. The invention may find other applications in various fuels, oils, esters, grease, pasty compounds such as cosmetics, as well as other fluids and semi-solids.
Ritter, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,505,867 (issued Apr. 9, 1996), discloses compositions of matter for inclusion in fuels and lubricants that include overbased sulfonates, jojoba oil, and castor oil. A combination of these components, when added to lubes oils for metals, was found to provide superior lubrication performance. A combination of these components, when added to automotive diesel fuel, was found to provide superior power, lower fuel consumption, and lower smoke emissions. A combination of these components, when added to 95 Research Octane gasoline, allowed a single-engine aircraft engine to perform without incipient detonation even while “leaning” the fuel by 20-25%.
Many other patents and products attempt to improve engine performance and lube oil performance, with varying success. Many commercial products are available from the major oil companies and from smaller specialty producers that tout improved engine performance and life due to removal of deposits, prevention of deposits, lubrication of engine metal surfaces, removal of water droplets in fuel, or rust inhibition.
Still, the present inventors believe that improvement in fuel additives and lubricants is needed. Embodiments of the present invention meet this and other needs.
Objects of the invention include improving the combustion performance of fuels, so that fuel economy is increased and harmful emissions are reduced. Further objects of the present invention include improving the lubricating value of fuels, and improving performance of lubricants in high velocity contact of metals. Other objects of some embodiments of the invention include enhancing pour point depression in diesel fuels. Invented compositions of matter are provided as additives for fuels and lubricants, wherein said additives enhance said combustion performance and lubrication, and fulfill some or all of the above objects.
The additives of the invention comprise a calcium-containing component, castor oil, a suspension agent, an optional castor supplement/partial replacement, and, in many embodiments, a polyalphaolefin component. Preferred calcium-containing components are overbased calcium sulfonate, calcium carbonate, and other liquids and powders containing calcium sulfonate and/or calcium carbonate. Preferred suspension agents (also called herein “bonding agents”) are fatty acid esters, triglycerides or other, with a pour point/melt point between about 5 degrees C. and 50 degrees C. Especially-preferred suspension agents are waxy esters of ricinoleic acid, palm oil, palm-olein, coconut oil, and jojoba oil. Preferred castor supplement/partial-replacements include sulfated castor oil, soy methyl ester, canola oil, and pour point depressant.
In embodiments used with fuels, the invented additives may be formulated from components only from the above lists, or may include other components such as conventional fuel additive packages, and the additives may be used with fuels that themselves include other additive packages. In embodiments used with lubricants or as lubricants, the invented additives may be formulated from components only from the above lists, or may include other components such as conventional lubricant additive packages, and the additives may be used with lubricants that themselves include other additive packages. In embodiments used with pour point depressants, the invented additives may be formulated from components only from the above lists, or may include other components; the invented additives may be used to enhance pour point depressants used with biodiesel fuel or diesels containing biodiesel, and most preferably, the invented additive is mixed with the pour point depressant before the mixture is added to a biodiesel or biodiesel-containing fuel.
While particular uses of the invented additives are described herein, other uses may become apparent over time. Further, particular preferred formulations are described here, but other formulations according to the invention may be effective within the broad scope of this disclosure or within the broad scope of the priority documents for this application, specifically U.S. Patent Application No. 60/702,420, filed Jul. 25, 2005, and U.S. Patent Application No. 60/782,091, filed Mar. 13, 2006, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
Embodiments of the invented composition may be formulated for use alone, blended into fuels, lubricants, treatments, or cutting oils, or blended into additives or pour point depressants for said fuel, lubricants, treatments, or cutting fluids. Embodiments of the invented composition may improve combustion and/or operation of combustion engines, resulting in improved miles per gallon and/or improved emissions. Embodiments of the invented additives may improve fuel lubricity, resulting in less engine wear and increased engine efficiency. Additives according to the invention comprise a calcium-containing component; castor oil; a suspension agent; an optional castor supplement/partial replacement, and, in many embodiments, a polyalphaolefin component.
The calcium component may be calcium sulfonate, preferably an overbased calcium sulfonate, but the inventors have also found that calcium carbonate may be effective, in place of, or in addition to, calcium sulfonate. Many calcium sulfonates and overbased calcium sulfonates are known (see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,505,867 Related Art), and are available commercially, for example, from Crompton Corporation/Great Lakes Corporation (Chemtura). Particularly preferred calcium sources are C-400™ or C-400-C™ or C-400-CLR™ overbased calcium sulfonates from Crompton Corporation/Great Lakes Corporation (Chemtura). Crompton C-400™ or C-400-C™ or C-400-CLR™ have been found to be excellent calcium sources in the form of liquids that do not exhibit calcium particle size problems by plugging fuel filters.
The inventors have experimented with magnesium sulfonates, and have found them to be effective, except that they typically leave deposits in combustion chambers on the head, valves, spark plugs, etc., to the point that the deposits on the spark plugs “ground out” the spark plugs. Therefore, including magnesium sulfonates instead of, or in addition to, calcium sulfonates may not be practical and are therefore not preferred. The inventors have experimented with barium sulfonates, but have not found them to be effective, for example, because they appear to decompose at the temperatures of interest in combustion engines to produce undesirable emissions. In preferred embodiments, therefore, only calcium-containing components are used, rather than other alkaline earth components and rather than other alkaline earth sulfonates.
The inventors believe that many, if not all, polyalphaolefin compounds will be effective in the preferred additives. The polyalphaolefins are preferably not hydrogenated for use in the preferred additives. Specific examples of preferred polyalphaolefin compounds that have been effective in the below-described tests and examples are SYNTON™ PAOs (such as SYNTON-40™ and SYNTON-80™) available from Crompton Corporation/Great Lakes Corporation (Chemtura), and DURASYN™ PAO's available from BP Amoco.
The suspension agents, sometimes called “bonding agents” by the inventors, are believed to be critical in keeping the calcium-containing component, whether calcium organic (example: sulfonate) or inorganic (example: carbonate) salt, in suspension in the vegetable oils of the preferred additives, and also in the final fuel-additive blends and the final lubricant-additive blends. The inventors note, in the case of overbased calcium sulfonate being suspended in additive-fuel or additive-lubricant mixtures of the invention, that both inorganic (the carbonate “overbased” portion of the overbased calcium sulfonate) and organic (the sulfonate portion of the overbased calcium sulfonate) calcium are being suspended. Because the effectiveness of the suspension agents has been so remarkable, it has appeared to the inventors that the suspension agent seems to nearly “bind” the calcium to the other components to keep the calcium in suspension, and, hence, the name “bonding agent.” The inventors do not necessarily believe that the calcium is covalently bound to the “bonding agent” or to the castor oil, castor supplement/replacement, or the PAO, but they use this “bonding agent” terminology as indicative of the surprising results achievable by using the suspension agents.
The preferred suspension agents comprise one or more of the following: 1) polymerized ester(s) of ricinoleic acid (polymerized ester(s) of 12-Hydroxy Oleic Acid), 2) polymerized ester(s) of 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, 3) palm oil 4) palm-olein, 5) coconut oil, and 6) jojoba oil. Particularly preferred suspension agents are:
Acme Wax 224™ from Acme Hardesty Co. (an example of item no. 1 above);
Acme Wax 225™ from Acme Hardesty Co. (an example, of items no. 2 above, having a 45 degree Centigrade melting point);
palm oil #701 (41 degrees C. melting point), #710 (41 degrees C. melting point), #720, and #730 (28 degrees C. melting point) from Columbus Foods;
palm-olein #725 (21 degrees C. melting point); and
coconut oils #92 (34 degrees C. melting point) and #76 (26 degrees C. melting point) also from Columbus Foods.
A less preferred suspension agent is jojoba oil (preferably only cis-jojoba, that naturally occurring jojoba, with about 7 degrees C. melting point), wherein it is less-preferred particularly because of its cost and low availability.
A representation of the general chemical structure of Acme Wax 224™ is portrayed in
A representation of the general chemical structure of Acme Wax 225™ is portrayed in
One may note the 18-carbon-chain monomers in both Acme Wax 224™ and 225™, each with a carboxyl (COO—) groups.
Regarding the castor oil component, conventional castor oil, as available from many commercial sources, is effective. The castor oil component optionally may be supplemented, or a portion but not all of the castor oil may be replaced, with one or more of the castor supplement/partial replacement components. The preferred castor supplement/partial replacement components are sulfated castor oil, canola oil, soy methyl ester, and pour point depressant (preferably a plant-oil-based pour point depressant, such as Rho-Max 10-310™, currently available from RHOMAX in Montreal, and reported to be a rapeseed oil derivative being the one preferred by the inventors). Sulfated castor oil (for example, “75% sulfated”) is preferred, and is also available from Acme Hardesty Co., Blue Bell, Pa., U.S.A.
A wide range of formulations are expected to be effective for the additive, for example, a “three group” formulation (noting that in such formulations polyalphaolefins are not added) may be within the following ranges:
The ranges for a “four group” formulation, listed below, have been found to be effective in many different environments:
When components from three groups are blended together to form 100 liquid-volume-% of the additive (leaving out Group 2), it is referred to as the “three-group additive” composition. When four groups are blended together to form 100 liquid-volume-% of the additive (including Group 2), it is referred to as the “four-group additive.”
The blending process is best done by adding Group 4 to the Group 1 component(s), and blending these two components/groups very well before adding any other groups. After blending the Groups 1 and 4, Group 3 and optionally Group 2 component(s) may be added. A thorough blending of components from Groups 1 and 4, before any other components are added, is believed by the inventors to be very important to keeping all the components of the additive in solution/suspension, and in keeping the additive in proper solution/suspension with the oil, fuel, or lubricant into which the additive is placed. While the components may be at a range of temperatures during the blending process, it is preferred that the components be blended at about room temperature up to about 100-140 degrees F.
The terms “blend” and “mixture” and “add” herein may be done with various methods and various equipment, and is not intended to require a particular method, particular equipment, or duration of mixing. In the claims, multiple of these terms may be used in a single claim, which is for clarity in explaining different steps, but is not intended to imply that the steps require different mixing techniques or equipment. In some embodiments, however, the blending/mixing/adding of the various components of the preferred additives with each other, or of the additive to the fuel or lubricant, may need to be done with a high speed, high shear, or otherwise energetic mixing technique of equipment, as will be apparent to one of average skill in the art without undue experimentation.
The preferred three-group additive may consist only of said three groups, and the preferred four-group additive may consist only of said four groups. Alternatively, the preferred three-group additive or four-group additive may be blended with additional components, for example, additive packages such as those available commercially, to arrive at a “blended additive.” A blended additive may consist of, for example, 80-99.99 LV-% of the three group combination and 20-0.01 LV-% of “additional components.” Or, a blended additive may consist of, for example, 80-99.99 LV-% of the four group combination and 20-0.01 LV-% of “additional components.” Thus, the “additional components” may range from a significant portion of the product (at about 20 LV-%, for example) to a very small portion of the product (at about 0.01 LV-%, for example). Examples of components that may be added to the “three-group additive” or “four-group additive” to form a “blended additive” include, but are not limited to, a pour point suppressant, wintergreen oil, dyes, oil, various esters, and/or various conventional additive packages for fuels or for lubricants. Further, the three-group or four-group additive or the blended additive may be added/blended with other materials, preferably lube oil or fuels, which themselves may already contain other “additives.”
Effective concentrations of the three-group or four-group additive, or the blended additive, in conventional lube oils are believed to be 0.002-20.0 LV-% four-group or five-group or blended additive (0.03-20 LV-% being typical) with 99.998-80 LV-% lube oil (99.97-80 LV-% being typical), for example. Effective concentrations of the three-group or four-group additive, or the blended additive, in combustion engine fuels are believed to be 0.002-5.0 LV-% three-group or four-group or blended additive (0.03-5 LV-% being typical) with 99.998-95 LV-% fuel (99.97-95 LV-% being typical), for example.
The inventor envisions use of a wide range of concentrations of the three or four-group additive or the blended additive in lube oils, fuels, cutting oils, treatment oils, and that the more important issue is that components from at least the three required groups be present in the lube or fuel, with or without other conventional or unconventional additive components.
In the following Examples, additives according to embodiments of the invention are described. Data associated therewith illustrates emissions improvement, fuel mileage (miles per gallon) improvement, and lubricity and metals treatment improvement.
Equaling 100 LV-% additive.
This formulation was blended by the methods described above, added to diesel fuel and to gasoline, and run in a variety of engines, as noted in the table below.
Tests 1-9 were performed under no-load conditions, with diesel fuel plus the additive (in a concentration of 1 ounce of additive in 12 gallons of conventional, commercial diesel fuel) compared to the same engine operating on only the diesel fuel. Tests 10 and 11 were performed under no-load conditions, with gasoline plus the additive (in a concentration of 1 ounce of additive in 18 gallons of conventional 87 octane, commercial gasoline) compared to the same engine operating with only the gasoline. All emissions results were obtained by means of an analyzer in the vehicle tailpipe, such as a Ferret™, Sun™, or ECOM™ analyzer.
The results of this testing are shown below as percent change in emissions when going from the diesel-only or gasoline-only performances to the “diesel plus additive” or the “gasoline plus additive” performance, respectively.
In Tests 1, 3-9 (no data available for Test No. 2): when additive was included, O2 increased by an average of 3%, while NOX decreased by an average of approximately 18%, carbon monoxide decreased by an average of approximately 27%, and carbon dioxide decreased by an average of approximately 8%. When additive was included, NO2 decreased by an average of approximately 19%, and NO decreased by an average of approximately 17%. Therefore, significant and surprising improvements in each of these emissions were seen in the diesel plus additive operations. In Test 10 and 11: when additive was included, hydrocarbon ppm emissions dropped by very large percentages, namely, approximately 100% and 67%, for an average of an 83.5% decrease. Therefore, significant and surprising improvement in emissions was seen in the gasoline plus additive operations.
Equaling 100 LV-% additive.
Testing was done in a Cummins B Series Turbo Diesel, starting with conventional, commercial #2 diesel (Test No. 1), followed by: the same diesel combined with additive (Test No. 2), diesel with 2% biodiesel additive and 1 ounce/10 gallons additive (Test No. 3), diesel with 5% biodiesel additive and 1 ounce/10 gallons additive (Test No. 4), and the fuel of Test No. 4 with an additional 1 ounce of additive per 10 gallons of fuel.
Testing was done at various engine rpm with no load, and at various road speeds (“with load”). Emissions were reported as shown in the table below, in the form of percent change from the base test, that is, Test No. 1. The data shows substantial and surprising improvement in NOX with the addition of additive and additive combined with biodiesel. For example, NOX decreased about 7-14% at 2500 rpm, no load; 8-31% at 30 mph; 3-21% at 50 mph; and 4-8% at 70 mph.
Dodge 2001 pickup, VIN# 387K23601G735111
Engine: Cummins B series Turbo Diesel
1. #2 diesel fuel
2. #2 diesel fuel with Additive in proportion of 1 fluid ounce per 10 gallons diesel fuel
3. #2 diesel fuel plus 2% biodiesel, with Additive in proportion of 1 fluid ounce per 10 gallons diesel fuel
4. #2 diesel fuel plus 5% biodiesel, with Additive in proportion of 1 fluid ounce per 10 gallons diesel fuel
5. the mixed fuel from no. 4 above, plus an additional 1 ounce of Additive per 10 gallons fuel.
Change=Difference from condition #1 data
Equaling 100 LV-% additive.
In this test, a gasoline vehicle was tested with load, at 75 mph. The vehicle was a 2001 Pontiac Bonneville with a 3800 engine (not turbo-charged). Test No. 1 was performed at 75 mph with conventional, commercial gasoline of 87 octane, and Test no. 2 was performed at 75 mph with the same gasoline plus 1 ounce of additive added per 10 gallons of the gasoline.
The test results show substantial and surprising results in CO emissions and in NOx emissions. CO was reduced by over 15% and NOx was reduced by over 50%, as shown by the table below.
MAC Truck from City of Butte, Mont.
In Condition #1, the MAC truck engine was warmed to operating temperature and run at idle at 600 rpm for an additional 15 minutes. Emission readings were taken for 5 minutes during which the readings were stable. The truck engine was then run for 5 minutes at 2000 rpm and 5 minutes of readings were again taken, during which time the readings were again stable.
In Condition #2, additive according to the following formula was added in the proportion of once fluid ounce to 20 gallons of #2 diesel fuel:
Baseline Additive Formulation added to the MAC fuel tank in Condition #2:
48 LV % Castor Oil from Acme Hardesty
4 LV % Jojoba Oil (tech grade from Purcell Jojoba)
Readings were taken at 600 rpm and 2000 rpm, after running the engine on this Condition #2 fuel-additive blend for 5 minutes.
In Condition #3, PAO (Crompton Synton 40) was added to the MAC truck fuel tank at a rate of one fluid ounce of PAO per 20 gallons of the Condition #2 fuel-additive blend. After running the engine on this Condition #3 PAO-enhanced-fuel-additive blend for 5 minutes, readings were taken at both 600 rpm and 2000 rpm.
In Condition #4, an additional dose of PAO was added to the MAC truck fuel tank at a rate of one fluid ounce of PAO per 20 gallons of Condition #3 PAO-enhanced-fuel-additive blend. After running the engine for 10 minutes (during which time the NOx and CO readings were dropping), the readings became stable and were taken at 600 rpm and at 2000 rpm for this condition.
In Condition #5, an additional dose of PAO was added to the MAC truck fuel tank at a rate of one fluid ounce per 20 gallons of the Condition #4 PAO-enhanced-fuel-additive blend. After running the engine for 10 minutes (during which time the NOx and CO readings were dropping), the readings became stable and were taken at 600 rpm and at 2000 rpm for this condition.
The readings for the above conditions may be summarized as shown below. For both the 600 RPM and the 2000 RPM data, the amounts of each added item are shown in fluid ounces per 20 gallons.
This data clearly show the reduction in CO emission and NOx emission both when the base formula is added to the diesel fuel, and also when the PAO is added to the fuel already enhanced by the base formula. It also shows a diminishing effect with extra PAO (as more and more is added in Conditions #4 and 5).
Note that this Example D involves fuel additive being used at a total of 1 to 4 fluid ounces per 20 gallons of fuel. The largest benefit comes from 1 ounce of the baseline additive formula plus 1 ounce of PAO.
38 LV % Soy Methyl Ester (B-100 Biodiesel from Cenex in West Fargo N. Dak.)
89 Octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, purchased at Casey's General Store, in Detroit Lakes, Minn.
Ferret 16 five gas analyzer
3800 engine, 173267 miles
The vehicle had a port welded to the exhaust pipe (in from of the catalytic converter) to measure emissions prior to the effects of the catalytic converter
Vehicle first was driven for 30 miles on the highway. Next the vehicle was allowed to idle for 20 minutes.
Baseline measurements were taken at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes.
The same procedure was used to evaluate during the experimental condition, wherein the above additive was added to the baseline fuel at a rate of one ounce to 15 gallons. Mean and median were calculated for the first and second half of the observation as well as for the total observation.
Baseline Condition (with Baseline Fuel only):
Experimental Condition (with Additive Included in Fuel):
Percent Change from Baseline to Experimental Condition:
87 Octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, purchased at Tesoro Station, in Detroit Lakes, Minn.
3800 engine, with 173237 miles
The vehicle has a port welded to the exhaust pipe (in from of the catalytic converter) to measure emissions prior to the effects of the catalytic converter
Vehicle first was driven for 80 miles on the highway with the baseline fuel only. Next the vehicle was allowed to idle for 20 minutes. Baseline measurements were taken at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. For Experiment Case #1, the above additive was blended into the baseline fuel, in a proportion of 1 ounce per 15 gallons. Mean and median were calculated for the first and second half of the observation as well as for the total observation.
Baseline Condition (Baseline Fuel only):
Experimental Case #1 (Baseline Fuel plus above Palm-Oil-Containing “Base” Additive):
Percent Change from Baseline to Experimental Case #1:
The Palm-Olein was added to the sulfonate and vigorously stirred with a hand held blender until it appeared to be thoroughly blended. Castor oil was then added and blended as well.
87 Octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, purchased at Tesoro Station, in Detroit Lakes, Minn.
Ferret 16 five gas analyzer
3800 engine, 173000+ miles
The vehicle has a port welded to the exhaust pipe (in from of the catalytic converter) to measure emissions prior to the effects of the catalytic converter.
Vehicle first was driven for 80 miles on the highway using baseline fuel. Next the vehicle was allowed to idle for 20 minutes. Baseline measurements were taken at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. The same procedure was used to evaluate during the experimental condition, wherein the above composition of additive with palm-olein was added to the baseline fuel at a rate of one ounce to 15 gallons. Mean and median were calculated for the first and second half of the observation as well as for the total observation.
Percent of Change from Baseline to Experimental:
89 Octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, purchased at the Tesoro station, in Detroit Lakes, Minn.
Ferret 16 five gas analyzer
3800 engine 173000+ miles
The vehicle has a port welded to the exhaust pipe (in from of the catalytic converter) to measure emissions prior to the effects of the catalytic converter.
Vehicle first was driven for 80 miles on the highway on baseline fuel. Next the vehicle was allowed to idle for 20 minutes. Baseline measurements were taken at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. The same procedure was used to evaluate during the experimental condition. The above composition of additive with Coconut Oil 92 was added to the baseline fuel at a proportion of one ounce to 15 gallons. Mean and median were calculated for the first and second half of the observation as well as for the total observation.
Percent of Change from Baseline to Experimental
Additive (according to One Embodiment of the Invention):
2 ounces (by volume) of calcium carbonate was heated in an electric oven to 120 Degrees F. Next, 2 fluid oz of Acme Wax 224™ was then mixed with the calcium carbonate, until it took on a consistent paste-like composition. Next, 2 fluid oz of castor oil was added and mixed with the combination of calcium carbonate and Acme Wax 224™. PAO was then mixed in.
87 Octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, purchased at Tesoro Station, in Detroit Lakes, Minn.
Ferret 16 five gas analyzer
3800 engine 173000+ miles
The vehicle has a port welded to the exhaust pipe (in from of the catalytic converter) to measure emissions prior to the effects of the catalytic converter.
Vehicle first was driven for 80 miles on the highway with the baseline fuel. Next the vehicle was allowed to idle for 20 minutes. Baseline measurements were taken at 30 second intervals for 10 minutes. The same procedure was used to evaluate during the experimental condition, after the above composition of additive with calcium carbonate was added to the baseline fuel at a proportion of one ounce to 24 gallons. Mean and median were calculated for the first and second half of the observation as well as for the total observation.
Percent of Change from Baseline to Experimental:
50 degrees
Stanley riding lawn mower with Briggs & Stratton 21 HP two cylinder engine.
Engine was warmed up and run until it burned up all the fuel in the tank and stopped. The mower was then filled with three pints of Condition A fuel (below); engine was started and mower deck immediately engaged. RPM was held at 4400. A “Snap On” Tachometer was used to check the RPM. The engine was run until all of the three pints was burned and the engine stopped. A watch was set to measure the running time of this condition.
The mower was then filled with three pints of Condition B fuel (below); engine was started and mower deck immediately engaged. RPM was held at 4400. As above, a “Snap On” Tachometer was used to check the RPM. The engine was run until all of the three pints was burned and the engine stopped. As above, a watch was set to measure the running time of this condition.
Condition A fuel: 20 gallons gasoline with an octane rating of 87, plus one (1) ounce additive according to one embodiment of the invention:
Equaling 100 LV-% additive.
Condition B: 100% gasoline with an octane rating of 87 (Not treated with any embodiment of the invented additive).
Condition A ran for 2910 seconds
Condition B ran for 2715 seconds
2910 seconds/2715 seconds=1.0712 (approximately a 7% improvement in performance).
Baseline Fuel Mid-grade 88 octane purchased at Exxon in Bozeman Mont.
Vehicle fuel tank was filled with fuel and then vehicle was driven on a particular route. The vehicle was then refueled at the same station with the same baseline fuel and a composition of additive was added with the fuel, and the same route was followed by the vehicle to test the baseline fuel with that particular additive. Each time the fuel ran low in the tank, the procedure repeated, refueling with baseline fuel and adding alternative compositions of additive. The four variations were:
Baseline Operation Vehicle operation with only mid-grade 88 octane gasoline
Case #1 Additive (according to one embodiment of the invention): Formulation follows in LV %, Added at rate of 1 fluid ounce per 20 gallons of baseline fuel.
5% Sulfated Castor Oil (75% sulfated)
Case #2 Additive (according to one embodiment of the invention): Formulation follows in LV % Added at rate of 1 fluid ounce per 25 gallons of baseline fuel.
Case #3 Additive (according to one embodiment of the invention): Formulation follows, in LV %, Added at rate of 1 fluid ounce per 20 gallons of baseline fuel. 48% Calcium Sulfoante 48% Castor Oil 4% Acme Wax 225™ Case #4 Additive (according to one embodiment of the invention): Formulation follows in LV % Added at rate of 1 fluid ounce per 20 gallons of baseline fuel. 48% Calcium Sulfonate
48% Castor Oil 4% Palm Oil
Additive (according to One Embodiment of the Invention):
20 LV % Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
5 LV % Sulfated Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
2 LV % Acme Wax 224™ (from Acme Hardesty)
Vehicles A and B were run with baseline, midgrade gasoline, and then the same vehicles were operated with the same baseline gasoline plus the additive above (1 ounce per 20 gallons) for Control A and Test B.
Testing conducted in Butte, Mont., was conducted using the following:
Mack 12 yard Dump (T-46), 1988
Fuel Tank Capacity 100 gallons
20 LV % Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
5 LV % Sulfated Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
2 LV % Acme Wax 224™ (from Acme Hardesty)
First tank of diesel fuel was untreated (no additive). Second tank was baseline fuel (diesel) plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons (this second tank may be considered a conditioning treatment). Third tank was same baseline fuel plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons.
So, one may see that there is a 8.6% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 2nd tank (with additive) and a 10.77% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 3rd tank (with additive).
Testing conducted in Butte, Mont., was conducted using the following:
GMC ¾ Ton (T-20)
Fuel Tank Capacity 32 gallons
20 LV % Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
5 LV % Sulfated Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
2 LV % Acme Wax 224™ (from Acme Hardesty)
Procedures:
First tank of diesel fuel was untreated (no additive). Second tank was baseline fuel (diesel) plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons (this second tank may be considered a conditioning treatment). Third tank was same baseline fuel plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons.
So, one may see that there is a 26.8% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 2nd tank (with additive) and a 15.90% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 3rd tank (with additive).
Fuel Tank Capacity 32 gallons
20 LV % Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
5 LV % Sulfated Castor Oil (from Acme Hardesty)
2 LV % Acme Wax 224™ (from Acme Hardesty)
First tank of diesel fuel was untreated (no additive). Second tank was baseline fuel (diesel) plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons (this second tank may be considered a conditioning treatment). Third tank was same baseline fuel plus 1 fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons.
So, one may see that there is a 15.9% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 2nd tank (with additive) and a 31.8% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 3rd tank (with additive), and a 21.8% increase in MPG between the 1st tank baseline and the 4th tank (with additive).
The Coconut oil was added to the sulfonate and vigorously stirred with a hand held blender until it appeared to be thoroughly blended. Castor oil was then added and blended as well.
1991 Ford F-250, 4×4, standard cab, 4.9 liter 6 Cylinder engine, Standard Transmission, XLT Lariat
With fuel tanks nearly empty, the vehicle was filled with 87 octane fuel at the Tesoro Station in Detroit Lakes, Minn. It was the driven with the cruise control on at 65 miles per hour in fourth gear, on four lane highways for 345.9 miles. The vehicle was then refueled at the same station, with the additive added to the fuel tank in the proportion of 1 ounce per 20 gallons, and the driving repeated on the same route under the same conditions.
Soy methyl ester: 19 LV %
Testing the muzzle velocity of a 180 grain 30-06 bullet when fired from a rifle and measured by a chronograph.
Condition A: hand-loaded cartridge (described above) was fired and velocity measured.
Condition B: identical to Condition A above except the cartridges were first put in the above-described Additive and the Additive with cartridges “soaking” therein were heated to 200 degrees F. After several minutes at 200 degrees F., the cartridges were removed, wiped clean, cooled, hand-loaded, and fired.
Condition A: 2768 feet per second.
Condition B: 2916 feet per second.
2916/2768=1.0535 (approximately a 5.4% increase in muzzle velocity).
Calcium sulfonate: 40 LV %
Use a prototype masonry chain saw, temperature was measured at the hottest point of the saw (tip). Also, an observation was made regarding the speed of cutting.
Condition A: The saw was used to remove mortar between bricks on an existing wall. Water was used as a coolant.
Condition B: The saw was used to remove mortar between bricks on an existing wall, as in Condition A. Water, treated with PB 10 sulfur chlorinated water-soluble cutting oil, was used as a coolant.
Treatment rates: 1 oz per gallon of water
Condition C: The saw was used to remove mortar between bricks on an existing wall, as in Conditions A and B. Water, treated with the Condition B water soluble cutting oil and the Additive listed above, was used as a coolant. Treatment rates: 1 oz of the Additive was added to 4 oz PB 10. One ounce of the blend of Additive plus PB-10 was added per gallon of water.
Condition A: Tip Temperature=161 degree F.
Condition B: Tip Temperature=130 degrees F.
Condition C: Tip Temperature=91 degrees F.
Water soluble oil as a coolant (Condition B) resulted in an average 31 degree F. lower temperature compared to Condition A.
Additive plus Water Soluble Oil (Condition C) resulted in a temperature 70 degrees F. lower than Condition A, and a temperature 39 degrees F. lower than Condition B.
Other advantages included: In Conditions A and B (that is, without the Additive), the cutting debris stuck (impacted) to the chain and bar. Also, with the additive, the operator reported a significant increase in power and RPM, and that the rate of cutting appeared to double.
Film strength of sulfur free gasoline and diesel fuels as compared to same fuels with palm oil as a bonding agent.
One fluid ounce of sulfur free gasoline was poured into reservoir on bearing test machine and let run for 20 sec. after which one 1 lb. weight was applied to the pendulum so that it puts 26 lbs. weight on rotating bearing. Machine immediately stalled and welded the bearings together (approx. 3 seconds).
Next, new bearings were installed on the bearing test machine, and the baseline gasoline plus the above additive was poured into the machine reservoir (one fluid ounce additive per 20 gallons fuel, or 1.4 cc. per gal.)
The bearing test produced a 28 second run (compared to about 3 sec. above) until film strength failed and bearings welded, stalling the machine.
Acme Wax 224™, from Acme Hardesty Corp., was evaluated as a suspension agent, as described below.
An additive according to embodiments of the invention was blended from:
1 fluid ounce C-400-CLR™ calcium sulfonate;
1 cc ounce Acme Wax 224™; and
1 fluid ounce castor oil.
(approximately: 49 LV % calcium sulfonate, 2 LV % Acme Wax 224™, 49 LV % castor oil)
This additive was blended using the method described earlier, so that calcium component and the Acme Wax 224™ were well-blended together first, followed by addition of the castor oil. This blend was allowed to cool to a temperature of 67 degrees F.
One and ½ of the above additive was added to ½ pint of fresh mid-grade gasoline, from an Exxon gasoline station, and, even after cooling to −17 degrees F. in a freezer for 13 hours (followed by warming to room temperature), the components remained in suspension/solution and no residue or cloudiness was visible in the jar, indicating full calcium suspension.
The same suspension results were achieved in the same test with Coconut Oil 92 and Palm Oil as suspension agents.
B-100—A “bulk” fuel, soy methyl ester, which is called “Biodiesel” and “B-100” (meaning 100% soy methyl ester).
B-100 plus an embodiment of the invented additive including conventional pour point depressant (Rho-Max 10-310™). The embodiment of the invented additive consisted of (LV-%):
10% Pour point depressant (RHO-Max 10-310™)
This above additive was then added to B-100 at a rate of one ounce per five gallons of B-100, and heated to 104 degrees Fahrenheit for a period of five hours.
Samples A and B were put in similar containers and brought to lower temperatures. Viscosity and pourability were visually checked.
Both Samples A and B were observed to have similar viscosity and both samples poured at similar rates from 80 to 30 degrees F.
Sample A became cloudy at about 25 degrees F. and turned to a solid at 20 degrees F.
Sample B showed some clouding at −10 degrees F., but continued to pour well at −20 degrees F. (that is, poured in a manner similar to Sample A when Sample A was at 70 degrees F.). Pourability of Sample B remained at this level with no observable change for a period of two weeks. The sample was then diluted with 50% soy methyl ester (that is, 50 LV % more B-100 was added), and identical results were noted. Therefore, the inventors believe the additive to be highly effective as an enhancer for pour point depressant over a wide range of concentrations.
The inventors have found that, when embodiments of the invented additive including a conventional pour point depressant and then added to “B-20” (which is common terminology for a bulk fuel of 80 LV-% conventional diesel fuel plus 20 LV-% Biodiesel (soy methyl ester)), the soy methyl ester does not separate from the conventional diesel fuel at −20 degrees F. This surprising result may be due to the invented additive being a suspension agent between the esters and the hydrocarbons. This benefit may extend to very low temperature, such as −40 degrees F., wherein the additive may act as an anti-gel/anti-separation agent for diesel fuels.
Several additives were blended in the following ranges and tested in Biodiesel:
On average, one fluid ounce of the additive added to 10 gallons B-100 biodiesel resulting in the treated biodiesel being liquid at 20-25 degrees F.
On average, one fluid ounce of the additive added to 5 gallons B-100 biodiesel resulting in the treated biodiesel being liquid at 10 degrees F.
On average, one fluid ounce of the additive added to 2 gallons B-100 biodiesel resulting in the treated biodiesel being liquid at minus 20 degrees F.
From the Examples and the foregoing discussion, one may see that a wide range of additive formulations are within the scope of the invention. Formulations of particular interest may be described as comprising:
While many additives may comprise the above components and percentages, some embodiments may consist of the above components and percentages (that is, totaling 100 LV % with no additional ingredients).
Of particular interest and benefit is that embodiments of the invented compositions of matter have been shown to reduce harmful emissions from combustion fuels (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and gasoline-ethanol) and to increase miles per gallon performance. Embodiments of the additives, and methods of using them in fuels, may reduce NOx, VOC's, HC, smoke and odor from combustion fuels, with NOx emissions being particularly improved by additives according to embodiments of the invention containing PAO, and with smoke and odor being particularly improved in diesel applications according to embodiments of the invention. The inventors believe, therefore, that automobile, bus, truck, airplane, train, heavy equipment, generators, etc. benefit from the invented additive.
The inventors believe that there is a synergistic effect from the invented composition of matter, specifically, treatment of the metal engine surfaces and improvement of combustion characteristics that together result in greatly improved and cleaner engine performance. The immediate effect is seen in terms of reduced harmful and unpleasant emissions, and the longer-term effect is seen in that metal surfaces appear to be changed, at least temporarily, so that an engine run with the invented additive in its fuel continues for a time to exhibit improved performance (compared to pre-additive operation) even when changed back to the original (pre-additive) fuel.
Although this invention has been described above with reference to particular means, materials and embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to these disclosed particulars, but extends instead to all equivalents within the broad scope of the following claims.
This application claims priority of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/702,420, filed Jul. 25, 2005, and U.S. Patent Application No. 60/782,091, filed Mar. 13, 2006.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US06/29016 | 7/25/2006 | WO | 00 | 5/19/2008 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60702420 | Jul 2005 | US | |
| 60782091 | Mar 2006 | US |
