Business opportunity for an engineer or small manufacturer

Shaun wrote:

SVreX wrote: 1750 ppm. Accuracy could float a little.

"accuracy could float a little". what is "a little"? Any idea on what happens as the ratio changes? Has any testing been done? How long does this assembly need to last? What is your cost objective? What sort of warranty are you going to offer? How corrosive is this additive? do you have spec sheets on the additive?

It means what it said. It will not be harmful if the accuracy of the injection ratio varies a bit, and the absolute optimum ratio has not been determined, and won't be because it would be different for every vehicle it applied to and there will be thousands of vehicles involved. We have successfully tested ratios from 750 ppm to 2500 ppm.

I believe all the testing, warranty issue type questions would be the responsibility of the additive manufacturer (me). I see no reason why it makes any difference to this discussion.

I won't be giving detailed spec sheets to anyone. Proprietary info.

I'm not interested in pontificating on all the variables or possibilities of what might or might not happen in every scenario (though I enjoy the discussion, and admire the creativity). I'm looking for a manufacturer with a can-do attitude who can take the bull by the horns and make this happen because I've got additive to sell and I need these units quickly. I don't have all the answers. When I find the guy who will run with this, I can provide all the info he should need to build it. I came to GRM because I know there are a lot of people capable of doing this.

J-man:

I like the way you think. But I suspect you are overthinking it.

Simplicity of installation will be key. Ability to manufacture LOTS of units quickly will be key.

The following people should have gotten a test email from me. If you didn't, please get back to me.

Reverse_Camber

grpb

DILYSI Dave

stumpmj

petegossett

Kendall_Jones

MadScientistMatt

Thanks guys!

Maybe I'm not thinking of this the right way, but when I read the first post it sounds like you want a fixed ratio of fuel:additive added to the tank, right? So if you put in X gallons of diesel, you want Y ounces of additive at a specific ratio. Is there a specific reason you need it automatically dispensed from a larger tank? It seems like it would be pretty easy to have a quick reference chart that shows the number of ounces required for the number of gallons of diesel added, and every diesel dispenser used will show the number of gallons added so it'd be a brainless task. From there, there is a wide variety of quick, easy, cheap ways to manually add a specific volume.

Making this add based on a measured ratio (with a sensor) and automatically compensating sure seems complicated. Is it really necessary to have it measure and automatically dispense (versus the operator adding it when they add diesel)?

Bryce

Bryce: you win as a grassroots thinker.

Unfortunately there is a human element.

Long distance drivers are paid to DRIVE,and that's it. Most are paid bonuses for fuel savings. If a driver gets in his head that "this stuff" gives better fuel economy, he'll dump more in. The product has a fall off. This will result in decreased fuel efficiency, and wasted expensive product.

The over the road trucks we are looking at in one fleet burn $47,000 per year PER TRUCK in fuel. Another burns $96,000 per year per truck. If you own 1000 trucks, that's a heck of a lot of fuel. These trucks get something like 6 mpg. Great drivers max out at about 8.5 mpgs. Optimizing the efficiency is an absolute must.

An automatic dispensing system eliminates the human element.

The new EPA '10 diesels do EXACTLY what you want in stock trim, with a large tank that has a computer automatically dispensing fluid at the appropriate ratio. The difference is that they dose the additive into the exhaust to clean up emissions when necessary instead of into the fuel to increase snake oil efficiency. You've got XXX gallons of fuel and XX gallons of diesel exhaust fluid, a computer takes care of the rest. The gauges on the dash tell the driver when to add fuel and when to add DEF. Set it and forget it. By using the DEF, the trucks can actually get better fuel economy than they would if they were required to meet emissions without the DEF. There are retrofit options available, but they're almost entirely geared towards cleaning emissions only, they don't improve fuel economy potential with the drastically reduced emissions as a result.

Of course, you wouldn't sell much snake oil...er...fuel additive if you recommended they just buy new trucks, but it sure is easier to sell a $1,000 snake oil machine than a $100,000 truck!

Bryce

So whats the advantage over just dumping it in the tank, again?

The issue is that unless you can either add this substance post-high pressure pump or add it to the intake air stream, unless you have a way of monitoring and shutting off dispensing when your fuel tank reaches a certain concentration, this becomes very difficult to do.

Adding another high pressure pump to inject this additive and tee-ing into the injection lines is cost prohibitive, difficult, and would require custom fitting for every application.

Anywhere else you add this additive in the fuel system, unless you have a way to know when to stop adding it based on concentration, will eventually up concentration in the tank due to return issues already mentioned. Even adding it post-high pressure pump would eventually up concentration in vehicles which have a return/bleed off line on the injectors.

If you add it to the intake airstream of the vehicle, that has a bit more potential, but then I would be worried about pooling in the intake tract unless you add it post-intercooler, and if you add it post turbo and post intercooler, you would need to have a pumping system capable of overcoming the boost pressure of the turbo, which can be quite high on modern diesels.

If this is to be easy, it should not interface with the electronics, as not all electronics are the same on every vehicle, which will add to cost, complexity, and installation difficulties.

If it was up to me, sell it in small bottles/pouches already metered out for 20 gallons..30 gallons..50 gallons, whatever increment works well (maybe multiple increments) single use so that you can just dump it and toss the container and dont have any smelly or messy half used containers in your truck. Thats the simplest solution and easiest to tool up for in short order.

If your additive works well and takes off, then work on an automated system. If it doesnt take off, you are not out the cost of a bunch of obsolete dispensing equipment.

As a design engineer and a diesel freak, this is a pretty interesting connundrum.

The additive does work well, and has been thoroughly proven. This IS the take off.

Nashco wrote: Of course, you wouldn't sell much snake oil...er...fuel additive if you recommended they just buy new trucks, but it sure is easier to sell a $1,000 snake oil machine than a $100,000 truck! Bryce

Nascho:

First off, are you understanding that we are not talking about pickup trucks, we are talking about over the road tractor trailers. They don't sell for $100K, and the fleets we are talking about have 1000's of trucks. Upgrading all of them to the latest model is absolutely not an option.

Secondly, the cleanup effect of the snake oil on hydrocarbon deposits works well enough that we believe we will be able to get EPA certification to DISABLE the EGR component of the diesels (a parasitic drag of about 5% on fuel economy performance, done for the purpose of improving emissions). That will equal to a 5% improvement in fuel economy ON TOP of the fuel economy improvements our product offers, with no negative impact to the environment. It would also completely negate your point on the 2010's, because their programs involve the EGR system.

FWIW, the EPA certification process costs over $1,000,000 to get approval. We are investing this (plus 12 years of testing) in the snake oil because we are pretty confident.

But I won't mind a bit if you'd rather go buy a new truck.

Here's another angle: if it's a good thing, then maybe it could be sold not to the truck lines but to the fuel companies. They could add it at the point of sale (the pump) and thus negate the whole mixing on the vehicle problem.

Or would the EPA have a E36 M3 hemorrhage over that one?

is this something along the lines of what BMW(?) or mercedes is doing with urea injection in their consumer diesels?

The tank inlet is a standard size correct? Just put a screw in mechanism with a fluid driven pump powered by the fuel being added that drives the additive pump. The whole thing should be no bigger than a spray paint can, and could be made to last a couple of fill ups then be disposed of. Everything is purely mechanical (read cheap), portable, and protected because it lives inside the tank. I do see a future problem with disposal when you are constantly throwing away something with a coating of diesel fuel.

I see no reason why an idea like that wouldn't work, nor why it would have to be disposable. Same idea in a permanent package would work just fine.

Autolex wrote: is this something along the lines of what BMW(?) or mercedes is doing with urea injection in their consumer diesels?

No. Chemically not very similar. Next generation- will make urea injection obsolete.

Injection pumping system could be mechanically very similar.

SVreX wrote:

Nashco wrote: Of course, you wouldn't sell much snake oil...er...fuel additive if you recommended they just buy new trucks, but it sure is easier to sell a $1,000 snake oil machine than a $100,000 truck! Bryce

Nascho: First off, are you understanding that we are not talking about pickup trucks, we are talking about over the road tractor trailers. They don't sell for $100K, and the fleets we are talking about have 1000's of trucks. Upgrading all of them to the latest model is absolutely not an option. Secondly, the cleanup effect of the snake oil on hydrocarbon deposits works well enough that we believe we will be able to get EPA certification to DISABLE the EGR component of the diesels (a parasitic drag of about 5% on fuel economy performance, done for the purpose of improving emissions). That will equal to a 5% improvement in fuel economy ON TOP of the fuel economy improvements our product offers, with no negative impact to the environment. It would also completely negate your point on the 2010's, because their programs involve the EGR system. FWIW, the EPA certification process costs over $1,000,000 to get approval. We are investing this (plus 12 years of testing) in the snake oil because we are pretty confident. But I won't mind a bit if you'd rather go buy a new truck.

SRveX:

First off, I design Class 5/6/7/8 trucks. I'm pretty familiar with the market/vehicles/fleets/drivers/technology being discussed.

Secondly, you let us know when the EPA allows you to disable EGR on a wide variety of used trucks based on a fuel additive. Having done plenty of work with EPA regulations, I won't hold my breath.

Obviously, I won't mind a bit if fleets would rather go buy a new truck, I'm personally invested!

I'm realistic; if you want to push this product, I think the most CHEAP (and simple) method of distributing it is your best bet, and I thought a manual dispenser would be appropriate for that. The more parts required to install, plumb, wire, service, etc. the less interested fleets will be. I'm also realistic about the amount a fraction of a percentage of the fuel going into the engine can change the emissions and economy. Even with highly sophisticated DEF, catalysts, reduced sulfur fuels, etc. OEMs are still relying on some EGR. Some 2010 trucks get better fuel economy than their 2009 equivalent due to the reduced EGR and otherwise improved engines, but this is a huge amount of work and technology for not-huge gains. Like I said, you let us know when the EPA signs off on this and I'll be the first to congratulate; personally, I hope that you stay focused on making a few bucks selling your snake oil rather than investing a lot of bucks trying to prove its merit, as I think you'll end up poor and frustrated trying to get the EPA to green light this.

Bryce

You're just going to have to trust me on this. The owners of this company have plenty enough clout to make it happen.

Nashco, I have no disrespect for you and your experiences on this. I would generally agree with you.

But this is a very different situation than you realize.

But, you are obviously not interested in taking a rather minor risk to be vested in this. That's really OK. I am looking for an entrepreneur to take a bit of a chance on a great opportunity, not a naysayer who is unfamiliar with the details of what we are doing.

I'm simply asking if anyone with some basic engineering and fabricating ability is interested in building something. There is no risk whatsoever to that person, and it makes no difference whatsoever if it is snakeoil. If I'm wrong, they get paid for building a couple of basic machines. If I'm right, there is a great opportunity for someone. Obviously, that someone is not you, Nashco. I'm OK with that.

SVreX wrote: I'm simply asking if anyone with some basic engineering and fabricating ability is interested in building something. There is no risk whatsoever to that person, and it makes no difference whatsoever if it is snakeoil. If I'm wrong, they get paid for building a couple of basic machines. If I'm right, there is a great opportunity for someone. Obviously, that someone is not you, Nashco. I'm OK with that.

You're right, this is different than I realized. I didn't realize that this was a paying gig even if it flops on its face. I have a couple of unemployed engineer friends that I passed this on to a couple of days ago and I'm pretty sure they thought the same thing. With a few weeks needed to get the project done and the complexity ever-increasing, it might help your cause to clarify that this is paying $XXXX for a working prototype by X date.

Bryce

Everything was clarified in great detail to the people who showed some initiative by responding. I see no reason why I should release a lot of potentially proprietary information to an open board.

And each of them got the same info. Several have responded.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks it can't be done within the parameters I explained (time frame, etc) is most certainly someone who won't get the job done that I need.

Maybe you should have asked instead of assuming.

MrJoshua wrote: The tank inlet is a standard size correct? Just put a screw in mechanism with a fluid driven pump powered by the fuel being added that drives the additive pump. The whole thing should be no bigger than a spray paint can, and could be made to last a couple of fill ups then be disposed of. Everything is purely mechanical (read cheap), portable, and protected because it lives inside the tank. I do see a future problem with disposal when you are constantly throwing away something with a coating of diesel fuel.

Not a bad idea and probably the best yet, but most pumps that I fill up at kick out if they see a bit of pressure/restriction at the nozzle. Plus you would have to seal the nozzle of the pump to the widgit to generate a pressure to drive the additive pump, which would prove difficult.

SVRex, have over the road drivers and fleet managers asked for this dispenser, or are you forcing it on them?

No matter what happens, I would like to see the ultimate design! I have a few ideas that I know WONT work, but I would like to see what DOES work.

Forcing it on them... you mean like the Christian proselytizing thing, or something???

Geez, so many suspicious folks!

The message from the fleet owners is pretty simple. I've sat down with dozens. Smart wealthy skeptical men. Every one of them has said the exact same thing. "If you believe in the stuff, put your money where your mouth is and buy the additizers. We'll test 10 trucks- 30 days later, if it works like you say, we'll buy both the additive and the additizers for everything in our fleet". Every one of them has also proceeded to ask how they can buy into the company.

I'm not forcing anything. I'm trying to buy additizers from someone reputable so I can sell additive. It will lead to additizer sales as well. I am a businessman developing business. If they want to buy these things, and someone wants to make them, fine.

I have no need to be in the business of selling these things, and don't need to make a thing from them. I am offering an opportunity. For all the whining around here about loss of jobs, it's pretty shocking how few people actually want to step up and make some money.

I'll sell plenty of product with or without these machines, because the product works. It won't be my loss.

93gsxturbo wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: The tank inlet is a standard size correct? Just put a screw in mechanism with a fluid driven pump powered by the fuel being added that drives the additive pump. The whole thing should be no bigger than a spray paint can, and could be made to last a couple of fill ups then be disposed of. Everything is purely mechanical (read cheap), portable, and protected because it lives inside the tank. I do see a future problem with disposal when you are constantly throwing away something with a coating of diesel fuel.

Not a bad idea and probably the best yet, but most pumps that I fill up at kick out if they see a bit of pressure/restriction at the nozzle. Plus you would have to seal the nozzle of the pump to the widgit to generate a pressure to drive the additive pump, which would prove difficult. SVRex, have over the road drivers and fleet managers asked for this dispenser, or are you forcing it on them? No matter what happens, I would like to see the ultimate design! I have a few ideas that I know WONT work, but I would like to see what DOES work.

OK, so either seal the mechanism to the nozzle downstream of where the nozzle gets its feedback or make the entire mechanism pop up out of the tank a few inches when filling so you can just use the nearly unaltered flow of fuel to power the feed pump. I think the flow ratio of additive needed is so minuscule you will hardly hinder the flow into the tank no matter what mechanism you use.

MrJoshua wrote: I think the flow ratio of additive needed is so minuscule you will hardly hinder the flow into the tank no matter what mechanism you use.

I am far from an expert on kick-out nozzles, but I know that just a little foam in the filler tube of my truck will kick out most nozzles, especially the ones made for big rigs. Not a large pressure differential in any case.

93gsxturbo wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: I think the flow ratio of additive needed is so minuscule you will hardly hinder the flow into the tank no matter what mechanism you use.

I am far from an expert on kick-out nozzles, but I know that just a little foam in the filler tube of my truck will kick out most nozzles, especially the ones made for big rigs. Not a large pressure differential in any case.

I'm mostly making semi educated guesses on how to make this work. I would need to do waaaaaaaaaaay more research to be sure of a decent concept so don't take my arguing too seriously. If I had done some research and had some manufacturing capability I would be all over this.

I'm digging this up perhaps to share information.

The additive product has completed testing, run through several hundred independent laboratory combustion bomb tests, and has a proven consistent 10-15% savings in fuel economy. It is running in several hundred fleet trucks with equally consistent results. Not only will they be negotiating with the EPA, but the US military is picking up on it, and so is NASA.

The investors are poised to make many millions.

Some of you were very helpful. Thank you.

In reply to SVreX:

I first saw a big pump, little pump arrangement. Looks a bit like a turbocharger where fuel is pumped in, running an impeller or other sort of more positive displacement pump engine that turns a smaller pump to inject the additive.

Could be mounted between the tank and cap with a line to an additive tank or as a device mounted to an additive bottle that can be slipped onto the pump nozzle prior to pumping. If my math is correct we are talking 1.75 gallons of additive per 1000 gallons of fuel.

I'm starting to think of positive flow valves to prevent addition of additive without fuel flow and fuel cutoffs for if the additive supply runs out..overrides and different fuel gauges for field verification of proper mix.

Now to make it as user friendly as possible because truckers want to fill up fast sometimes. My brain is gonna be designing tonight..I hate that!

Bruce