Sciencemadness Discussion Board - picric acid in fuel mileage additive

picric acid in fuel mileage additive

Rosco Bodine - 30-3-2005 at 18:34

Here's an interesting patent from 1980 .

GB1574297

Picric Acid and Ferrous Sulfate in solution
are used in very small catalytic amounts
to achieve a claimed 20 percent increase in fuel mileage .

This " MSX Additive " seems very interesting . Anybody ever heard of this
stuff and is it snake oil or a legitimate development ?

copy of patent attached

Rosco Bodine - 30-3-2005 at 19:37

It's time to start using some of that new bandwidth

Attachment: US4145190.pdf (421kB)
This file has been downloaded 1201 times

Twospoons - 30-3-2005 at 19:58

The patent looks reasonable - its informative and detailed, and appears to be based on prior art regarding both picric acid and iron salts as fuel additives.

The economy tests were (apparently) performed with 1975 vehicles, so advances in engine technology may have made additives such as this obsolete.

Rosco Bodine - 31-3-2005 at 05:35

There is an interesting fact about such a composition involving picric acid and ferrous sulfate in solution , which further explains my interest in the mileage additive patent .

It is mentioned by Urbanski that picric acid is reduced to picramic acid by ferrous sulfate . No reaction conditions are specified and no further reference to this has turned up from any of my searches where I was actually looking for alternative methods for picramic acid .

Anyway , it would seem probable that in the solution of the patent that the ferrous
ion would likely be oxidized to ferric ion ,
and probable that the further reaction product present in the MSX additive is
ferric picramate .

Ferrous Sulfate is a cheaply available garden supply item which is a candidate for experimentation now in several ways
with regards to energetic materials .
It may be useful as a reducing agent for picric acid conversion to picramic acid as
precursor for DDNP . And it may also be useful in the synthesis of the iso-MEDINA
compounds by virtue of its reaction with a
nitrate and dilute sulfuric acid , which mixtures produce Nitric Oxide upon heating , the nitric oxide the being bubbled through acetone to produce the iso-MEDINA .

The hydrocarbon fuels treated with the MSX catalyst might possibly result in better performance from ANFO compositions .

And as an added bonus , one may get better gas mileage while commuting to
and from the test range

vulture - 31-3-2005 at 10:37

I doubt ferrous sulfate could act as a reducing agent in an apolar environment like gasoline.

Nitromethane mixed with gasoline (I would avoid going above 1:10

) apparently gives some spectacular increase in performance but also in engine wear.

Rosco Bodine - 31-3-2005 at 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
I doubt ferrous sulfate could act as a reducing agent in an apolar environment like gasoline.

In an anhydrous system , I would agree with you . But there is plenty of water and toluene used to accomplish the solution of the components in the MSX additive , and in that preliminary mixture it seems possible for the reduction to occur before the mixing of that additive with gasoline .

Quote:

Nitromethane mixed with gasoline (I would avoid going above 1:10

) apparently gives some spectacular increase in performance but also in engine wear.

Nitromethane is generally mixed with methanol for the "fuelers" in drag racing . But the quantity is substantial so the nitro is actually a principal fuel component , and not just a fuel additive .

Nitronaphthalene has also been used as a fuel additive in small quantities .

Mr. Wizard - 31-3-2005 at 14:50

I was holding off because I thought it might be off topic, but wouldn't methanol saturated with ammonium nitrate give a boost to engine performance? The breakdown of AN would yield more oxygen and volume than an equal amount of air. Poor man's nitrous oxide if you want. You might have to be careful with what kind of metal your carburetor was made of, as the zinc won't hold up to AN. Another site, who's name escapes me, said they had actually experimented with sodium nitrate in methanol, and got results! I would think the solid residue from the sodium salt would be a problem, but there were no details.

Rosco Bodine - 31-3-2005 at 15:45

IIRC there have been patents for eutectic liquid mixtures of oxidizer salts which are mainly ammonium nitrate along with guanidine nitrate and some other organic nitrates in admixture with fuel solvents , and the mixtures can function as monopropellants for the transition altitudes where regular jet engines flame out for lack of atmospheric oxygen . Using such propellants , an air breathing jet can switch to blended fuel as the air at high altitude gets thinner , perhaps even doubling the operational ceiling for the aircraft / quasi-spacecraft . And of course there is a huge power boost at
the very altitude where regular airbreathers are gasping . It might make for an interesting "nitrous system" for a
high altitude interceptor , and would probably be capable of sounding that craft into space , although reentry would be a hot and nasty tumble without some advance preparations for that ride .

Naphthalene Picrate fuel additive

Rosco Bodine - 13-3-2007 at 22:33

Inventor claims a 100% gasoline engine output increase
when fuel contains 2% naphthalene picrate additive .

Never heard of this one either , but it sounds interesting .

Have to wonder if this might also have any detonation catalyst effect in ANFO . There is another patent which
does mention a similar increased output for AN explosives when nitronaphthalene is a component along with one from a group of "activator" compounds of particular molecular size , which is claimed to work to increase the velocity and output of the AN explosive ....beyond what is its usual fuel and oxidizer performance .

[Edited on 14-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Attachment: US928803 Naphthalene Picrate Gasoline Engine Performance Additive.pdf (109kB)
This file has been downloaded 821 times

quicksilver - 14-3-2007 at 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Wizard
but wouldn't methanol saturated with ammonium nitrate give a boost to engine performance? The breakdown of AN would yield more oxygen and volume than an equal amount of air. Poor man's nitrous oxide if you want. You might have to be careful with what kind of metal your carburetor was made of, as the zinc won't hold up to AN. Another site, who's name escapes me, said they had actually experimented with sodium nitrate in methanol, and got results! I would think the solid residue from the sodium salt would be a problem, but there were no details.

As I understand it most of what is on the road is fuel injected and the material that contacts the fuel is usually high chrome SS. But getting back to the issue of solid residue; I think that is a very serious issue.
From what I have read THAT has been the stumbling block in most attempts to the performance end of fuel additives. Where nitro has shown to be applicable, the wear is not so much on the drive train per se' as the increase is fractional, but on the rings which suffer due to heat.
However, years back when Mazda had that rotary motor....THAT would have been a candidate for these types of enhancements due to it's construction.
I have yet to really get a good answer why that design went no-where...

[Edited on 14-3-2007 by quicksilver]

Rosco Bodine - 14-3-2007 at 09:12

I wonder if a misinterpretation of this hundred year old patent is possibly the origin of the five mothball per gallon
" octane boost " that is something of an urban legend .

Napthalene Picrate should be easy enough to make and test ....IIRC it is simple addition compound .

I am a bit dubious about the 100% power increase claims , but something in the 5-10% increase range
would not seem so unbelievable ......even so there remains the issue as to cost effectiveness due to the
increased cost of any such blends . Everything always
hinges on the economics of the blend as compared with the straight unblended fuel , and what is the actual
" cost per mile " comparison for the unblended fuel versus the blended fuel . For example it does no good to
increase to cost of fuel 10% by blending additives which
only increase mileage by 5% . The bottom line for
the entire scenario is the economics ....except in the
unusual circumstance where for some reason range and endurance might be the priority , and the cost less relevant .

Bert - 15-3-2007 at 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by quicksilver

However, years back when Mazda had that rotary motor....THAT would have been a candidate for these types of enhancements due to it's construction.
I have yet to really get a good answer why that design went no-where

I owned an RX-3. The tip seals, which are the equivalent of the rings in a piston engine were delicate and had short service lives. Replacement involved a COMPLETE teardown of the engine.

Mazda is still building rotaries, but the RX-8 is the only production offering. RX-8

Rosco Bodine - 16-3-2007 at 00:36

Evidently the ferrous picrate fuel catalyst is for real .

I did a search for ferrous picrate and a bunch of search hits
appeared for patents going back sixty years or more .

I am pretty sure this is legit as a fuel catalyst from the number of patents granted over so many years , being
filed from several different countries by different inventors ,
apparently backing up their claims with controlled tests .

The stuff works as a fuel catalyst , but the complication
is that it is corrosive in the presence of moisture ....
which is not good .

Supposedly the stuff even makes oil lamps burn visibly and measurably brighter , and oil fired furnaces burn hotter and cleaner ......as well as making engines run more efficiently .

Here is an example patent ....
and there's a list of several others that are similar .

For example , here's another

US4073626

And one from 1944

US2506539

[Edited on 16-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Attachment: US3282858 Ferrous Picrate Fuel Catalyst.pdf (388kB)
This file has been downloaded 1004 times

quicksilver - 16-3-2007 at 06:01

I was under the impression that the "tip seals" were more robust but that would explain a lot [needing to do a complete tear down to replace the tip seals] of why the design presently was not popular. It's a shame, as I had driven a little truck w/ a rotary motor that was very fast for it's "displacement".

*TOPIC*
If the complication is that it (picrate fuel additives) are corrosive in the presence of moisture that would make sense. However from a modern perspective we are talking about steel sleeves in an aluminum block in most cases, correct? Seems that something could be done via stainless (higher chromium, etc) or perhaps this was not tested in a modern motor, etc .... Where I am going is that since the patents are dated, perhaps the cylinders of that time were simple cast iron holes in a block... Almost any powerful increase in oxygen could make THEM rust.

Levi - 16-3-2007 at 06:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosco Bodine
Supposedly the stuff even makes oil lamps burn visibly and measurably brighter , and oil fired furnaces burn hotter and cleaner ......as well as making engines run more efficiently .
[Edited on 16-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Hotter burning fuel means more NO<sub>x</sub> emissions, though. I noticed the patent made no mention of nitrogen oxides when it was claiming to reduce partially combusted hydrocarbons. Convenient oversight?

gregxy - 16-3-2007 at 09:23

There are a bunch of things to consider.

1. Would this additive increase the likelyhood of detonation,
or premature ignition. Detonation in a gasoline engine is bad
and most modern engines have knock sensors which retard
the timing if detonation is detected.

2. Would the iron suspended in the exhaust be healthy to breath? (Maybe it would help the global warming, one of the
proposed solutions is to spread Fe in the oceans to increase
the growth of algee).

3. Would Fe deposits harm the engine?

Rosco Bodine - 16-3-2007 at 10:00

The additive was tested in both gasolines and diesels so I think there is no adverse affect on engines as regards detonation . I saw a long term testing report on a fleet
of buses IIRC which was done by the SAE and found something like 8% mileage increase along with reduced emissions from diesels .

About the Fe particulate emissions or what that might do to catalytic converters .....I don't know the story on that .

The soft oxide deposits would likely not harm an engine ,
and these sort of deposits could even be beneficial .

[Edited on 16-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Attachment: SAE ferrous picrate fuel catalyst test report.pdf (158kB)
This file has been downloaded 1134 times

YT2095 - 16-3-2007 at 11:38

I`ve heard a similar claim using acetone for milage increase also.
I have an old early 60`s Briggs & Stratton petrol engine and did the acetone test, thsre was no appreciable difference.
I have Picric acid here, if I make the Iron salt of it (iron picrate) and add some that???

I don`t mind testing stuff like this and the engine although working, doesn`t owe me a penny, How would YOU go about setting this up as an experiment for fair trial?

I`ll need a little help here as my only use of Picric acid has been for Dyestuff, so I`m a little lost.

give me good explicit intstructions, and I`ll test this for you (prabably durring the summer months tho).

Rosco Bodine - 16-3-2007 at 12:25

A standby generator would make an excellent testbed .

An engine driven generator powering a fixed resistive load
like a lamp bank , or a heating element used for boiling water , should do nicely as a dummy load for a fuel test .
The generator has an automatic throttle control which senses
the voltage output under load , and varies the throttle position by a solenoid to maintain the rpm constant so the output voltage also remains constant . This arrangement
constitutes a pretty good " work performed indicator " ,
using a liter of fuel and a stopwatch to see how long that
liter of fuel makes the generator run while powering that dummy load used for the test .

A superior fuel would cause the throttle to close slightly ,
and reduce fuel consumption rate , so that a liter of superior fuel would last longer than a liter of ordinary fuel powering
the same engine and the same load .

To really get down to brass tacks on fuel economy requires a manifold vacuum gauge and a mixture control setting like
on an aircraft engine . IIRC , the maximum fuel economy
is reached at the point where the mixture is leanest , also
the point where manifold vacuum peaks , and any further
increase causes rpm's to drop and power loss , indicating
the limit of that particular fuels performance . An aircraft
cruising at a fixed altitude , or an aircraft engine running
on a test stand like maybe an airboat sitting on its trailer ,
would really very quickly reveal the fuel quality just by
manually tweaking the mixture , leaning it out to the
" break point " and watching the manifold vacuum reading .
The better the fuel ....the further you can lean it out and
the higher the manifold vacuum will rise before the engine
loses power .

[Edited on 16-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Rosco Bodine - 26-6-2014 at 09:02

There could be an additional benefit for use of such a fuel treatment in a formula including free picric acid or picramic acid which may serve to slowly dissolve and eliminate accumulation of the red iron hydroxide slime which accumulates from fuel tank corrosion that is common when using ethanol blended fuel which is corrosive to steel fuel tanks, and causes plugged fuel filters and clogged inlet strainer socks for fuel pumps, leading to expensive repairs. Possibly a dual benefit could be realized from a specifically formulated additive that would not only increase the mileage under best conditions, but would also eliminate the corrosion related issues associated with ethanol blended gasoline.