Fuel catalysts in Hurricanes

[fat albert]

:eek: Hmm that's what I thought.

This might be better placed in the Tech forum but some of you old salts and engineers might have a definitive answer.

Gathered the following from trolling sorry trawling the 'net:

Hurricanes produced in the UK during the war ran on 100 RON fuel (developed in the years prior to the war I believe). As part of the aid program for Russia Hurricanes were delivered to them to help thwart the evil hun.
Unfortunately Russian fuel was a bit poor to say the least and didn't have the necessary octane rating. Some boffin by the name of Henry Broquet came up with some lumps of metal (tin?) that you pop in the fuel tank; these react with the fuel in some way and increase it's RON.

Questions are then did this actually happen and if so how does that work??

[DB6]

A book I recently read, Hurricanes Over Murmansk by John Golley, deals with this but makes no mention of increased octane - just says the highter octane UK fuel increased performance. The Nostalgia forum will probably give you more info.

[fat albert]

Marvellous - Nostalgia forum eh? Never knew there was such a thing!
Cheers - I'll go there :)

[fat albert]

This might be better placed in the Tech forum but some of you old salts ;) and engineers might have a definitive answer.

Gathered the following from trolling sorry trawling the 'net:

Hurricanes produced in the UK during the war ran on 100 RON fuel (developed in the years prior to the war I believe). As part of the aid program for Russia Hurricanes were delivered to them to help thwart the evil hun.
Unfortunately Russian fuel was a bit poor to say the least and didn't have the necessary octane rating. Some boffin by the name of Henry Broquet came up with some lumps of metal (tin?) that you pop in the fuel tank; these react with the fuel in some way and increase it's RON.

Questions are then did this actually happen and if so how does that work??

[MightyGem]

Weren't they selling similar bits of metal a few years back, to go in your car, when they were busy downgrading petrol ratings? Claimed to have a similar effect I believe.

[fat albert]

MG - that's what got me on to this; Japanese cars mapped to run on 100RON jap fuel being used in the UK on 97 SUL or 98.5 Optimax ;)

Broquet market these for cars (they are in my tank as we speak) but I'm just interested in the actual history of them and how they actually do what they supposedly do :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes it did. I believe that it catalytically creates longer polymer chains within the fuel. You can still buy the catalyst for automotive use, it's supposed to allow 4* only vehicles run on 92 RON unleaded, but I don't know anybody who has ever been brave enough to try a broquet catalyst in their car.

G

[fat albert]

Thanks Genghis

It was actually broquets in cars that got me onto this! :rolleyes: :)

They are marketed and used quite widely by owners of imported japanese performance cars that struggle a bit on our hopeless 97/98.5 RON fuel. Jap fuel is 100RON as standard.

My car has them fitted as standard by the importer (Prodrive).

I was just interested in their origins and, if they do do what the manufacturers say, why don't we hear more about them?

:)

[Genghis the Engineer]

A relic of my mispent youth is that I'm a member of the Civil Service Motoring Association (a bit like the AA but different and cheaper - I think that servicemen are eligible and it's worth the money). The CSMA's magazine has run several features on them over the last few years. None of which, before you ask, I've kept.

G

[Proman]

This reminds me of the bold solution to some of Africa's most pressing problems, raised in the 1970's; Dehydrated water.

I've never seen any tho'.........

[Woff1965]

an alloy of lead and tin.

The Russians did not have the industrial capacity to add lead to petrol at the refining stage. However some chemiost came up with those lead/tin pellets. Effectively they turn unleaded into leaded in the tank.

They basically provide enough lead to lubricate the valves in a petrol engine.

Don't know about it raising the RON level though, just intended to stop the engine pinking/knocking etc.

No i can claim no special knowledge other than it was discussed on TOP GEAR about the time new cars were being delivered with unleaded only engines in the late 80's early 90's.

[opso]

The Nostalgia forum isn't what it used to be. :D

[Philip Whiteman]

Following my engineering degree, I worked for seven years in automotive fuels research at BP Sunbury, three years at the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Institute and (as a consultant) five years at AEA Harwell, where we had a chassis dynamometer and conducted emissions work.

Take it from me: every one of the fuel octane enhancing/economy improvement/emission reduction catalysts I was ever involved in testing - and there were many of them - UTTERLY FAILED TO WORK.

I have lost count of the number of mad inventors, charlatans and downright conmen who have sat at my desk, shaking their heads and insisting that all our carefully calibrated equipment could only be wrong. (The other ploy was to refuse to pay for our independent tests when they didn't match their deluded expectations.)

Caveat emptor!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Phillip Whiteman

Take it from me: every one of the fuel octane enhancing/economy improvement/emission reduction catalysts I was ever involved in testing - and there were many of them - UTTERLY FAILED TO WORK.

During the mid 1960s I had a part time endeavor selling industrial detergents and ultrasonic detergents and ultrasonic cleaners. I was contacted by the sales manager of the detergent firm who invited me to a two week training session at the home plant in Houston, Texas. While I was there they asked me if I would be interested in marketing a fuel additive that improved combustion and reduced carbonaceous emissions. They had tested it in over the highway trucks and it worked fine. It in effect turned Diesel 1 into Diesel 2 and at the same time reduced the smoke point. I had about fifty gallons shipped to my home in California and I stared talking to different organizations. My primary job was as an engineer on two ship building contracts, which gave me access to the US Navy Base in Long Beach. I gave several gallons to the engineering officer of a squadron of mine sweepers. They put it into the fuel system of an engine on a test stand and it completely eliminated smoke and the engine ran deposit free. They put several gallons into the fuel tank of one of the minesweepers and the engine ran smoke free and internal combustion deposits were greatly reduced.

I gave several gallons to Garrett AiResearch and they put it into the fuel system of an engine that was being run off mixture and the smoke disappeared. I instrumented my car with exhaust gas temperature gages as well as a manifold pressure gage and a cylinder head temperature gage. I had to modify the engine by removing the air reactor pump and several other elements of the smog control system. In order to do this I had to get permission from the California Air Resources board. I had their labs and the labs at the Automobile Association run a base line test prior to modifying the engine. After the modification I changed the plugs and placed the additive in the fuel tank. I ran periodic borescope checks and monitored the head temperature and exhaust gas temperature. The test went on for a year and I periodically brought the car back to the AAA labs and they checked it out. Their opinion was that the fuel additive added power, reduced emissions and the engine ran cleaner.

I tried contacting the major gas turbine manufacturers but the refused because they were working on smoke free engine designs. I was already counting the millions that I could make by adding this additive at the refinery. Just to be on the safe side I sent a sample to Texaco. Several weeks later I got a very pointed letter telling me that they had developed this additive and if I sold it to any other refiner I would face a lawsuit.

Needless to say Texaco never put the additive in their fuels sold to the public. The additive is Poly Isobutylene, which strangely enough is used in the manufacture of chewing gum.

:cool:

[Sir George Cayley]

The story of the Broquet Fuel Catalyst began in 1941 when British Hurricane fighters, given to the Russians to help in the war effort, ran into problems with poor quality Russian fuel. In fact the first sortie, by 134 Squadron on the 11th September 1941, nearly ended in disaster as the Merlin engines kept cutting out as the fuel started "waxing". Russian chemists working alongside British Merlin engine specialists developed a solid metallic fuel catalyst which stabilised the fuel and improved its combustion characteristics.

The catalytically treated fuel produced a cleaner and more efficient combustion enabling the Rolls Royce Merlin engines to operate satisfactorily. Whilst this significant achievement appears to have gone largely unnoticed, RAF maintenance records for the period do, indeed, confirm that a solid fuel catalyst was used in British aircraft in an overseas theatre of war. Use of the "Broquet" Catalyst was noted by The Daily Telegraph (6/12/93) as a means of overcoming fuel problems encountered by the RAF in 1941 on the Russian front.

Henry Broquet, one of the British technicians working alongside the Russians, brought the secrets of this discovery back to the West on his return from the front.

After the war Broquet continued with research on a tin-based solid fuel catalyst and commenced manufacture of a catalyst which was used to prevent the build-up of carbon and other deposits in combustion chambers and was used primarily in the marine industry fitted to the fuel lines of large diesel engines.

In 1963 Henry Broquet demonstrated to the world's press that use of his catalyst meant that a marine engine could be stripped, cleaned and serviced in four and a half hours compared with the usual two and a half days.

Unbeknown to Broquet his partner sold the Company, and the rights to manufacture, to a large international mining group who recognised the product's potential and wanted to manufacture it themselves. Broquet, though, refused to pass on the manufacturing secrets and, with the new owners unable to produce it, the product disappeared from the marketplace for nearly twenty years. In 1985 Broquet was contacted by an executive of the Company who had bought him out all those years ago to be told that the Company themselves had been taken over and the rights to manufacture were to be returned to Broquet, then 70 years old.

By the end of 1986 the catalyst was once more being manufactured to the original Broquet formula and some of its extraordinary properties are only just emerging as scientists examine the catalytic process. Fifty years ago the West looked to tetraethyl lead to upgrade fuel quality but the Russians, then world leaders in organic chemistry technology and major tin producers, took a different approach realising that, in many ways, tin has vastly superior properties, compared with lead, as a catalytic reagent.

Since its return to the market more than 80,000 vehicles worldwide are fitted with Broquet. Their engines run more efficiently and cleanly. Better combustion means reduced noxious exhaust emissions and the catalytic process means that petrol engines designed to run on leaded petrol can operate, quite safely, on unleaded fuel without engine adjustment.

Henry Broquet died in 1989 but the catalyst bears his name and today, more than 50 years after its discovery, Broquet's catalyst has a new role to play in engine and fuel technology. The world has woken up to the need to reduce vehicle pollution and do away with leaded petrol; this British-Russian invention is set to make a startling contribution to the cleaner environment we strive for.

Footnote . Following authentication of Henry Broquet's role in developing the fuel catalyst whilst with the RAF's 151 Wing in Russia in 1941, Broquet's Managing Director, Peter Fearn, has organised six Reunions which have brought together many of the surviving RAF and Russian Air Force veterans. In 1994, as a result of these gatherings RAF veterans were invited to Russia to re-visit the scenes of 1941 which a included a trip to Vaenga which was their RAF base more than 50 years ago. As part of the VE Day celebrations in 1995 Peter Fearn and four RAF veterans returned to Moscow and were invited to attend the unveiling of a plaque by Prime Minister, John Major, commemorating the RAF's wartime achievements in Russia.


Prepared by D Lock & Associates
Distributors of The Broquet Catalyst.
Swallow Ridge, Lynwick Street, Rudgwick, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 3DG.
Tel: 01403 823507 Fax: 01403 823509


I run a 1300cc VW Beetle with a Broquet Catalyst pack in the tank. Its been there for five years and has clearly made running on unleaded fuel straight forward. I also get about 7% better consumption into the bargain.

Interestingly I wrote to the PFA Engineering Dept about applying this to a VW powered a/c and was greeted with overwhelming indifference. Apparently their fuel expert was not convinced. I take it he was too young to have done a tour on Hurricanes in Russia!

Sir George Caley

The air is a navigable ocean which laps at everyones door

[Philip Whiteman]

Read you posting with great interest, Lu.

Writing in haste, I inadvertently damned all catalysts -- and we all know how well three-way and even simple oxidizing exhaust catalysts work.

I have not a shred of doubt that there are independently-developed fuel additives out there that work.

My ire was directed at the sharks who market dud aftermarket devices and compounds -- all those air-bleed valves, magnets, metal fuel pellets and the like. Most of their ideas have been around for years, and surface again and again, at regular intervals (as does the Russian Hurricane fuel additive story).

[411A]

One additive that works REALLY well in some piston engines is ADI...water/methanol...some turbines too.
'Course this is not added to the fuel in the tank, but works well nonetheless....
OTOH, sometimes methanol is added to avgas as an anti-icing agent.

[ShyTorque]

Sir G C,

You say that you get 7% better fuel consumption in your VW. Better than what? Better than you got 5 years ago or have you made a recent scientific comparison? I can get a much bigger improvement than 7% by easing off on my right foot during any journey.

Whenever these fuel catalyst devices get properly tested by motoring organisations, they never seem to perform as advertised.

Talking of which, your post seems to be a poorly disguised advertisement, the likes of which are banned on this here forum. :rolleyes:

[SASless]

Thinly disguised maybe....but very interesting reading and 90% to the question being discussed. I will give him he other 10% as a contributor's fee.

[Philip Whiteman]

Russian avgas 'waxing'? Marine engines being quicker to strip? The Telegraph reporting Broquet's wartime activies in 1993?

What is going on here? Anybody else smell a rat?

Fact: avgas does not form wax at any real operational temperature. Fact: diesel marine fuel additives have little, if any, connection with gasoline - let alone avgas - additives. Fact: real events tend to get reported at the time they took place.

[Sir George Cayley]

I based my assertion on the following :-

VW Type 1 1300cc twin port engine fitted to 1963 standard export Beetle. This would originally have had a 1200cc motor driving a standard gearbox - sorry can't remember the final drive ratio.

Pre fitting the catalyst the 8 gallon tank would give 200 miles to dry- post catalyst this rose to 214 miles e.g. 7%

I commute in the car 50 motorway miles a day at 50 mph and have done since 1996. I fitted the catalyst in 1998.

I found out about it from reports in the journal of the Civil Service Motoring Association who endorsed it. I have no connexion with the people who market it but am nevertheless a satisfied customer.

Incidently I copied in their web site in answer to the original request for more info on Russian Hurricanes

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding

Sir George Caley (Scientist Inventor & early Aviator)

The air is a navigable ocean that laps at everyones door

[4wings]

Any connection with Shell's ICA (Ignition Control Additive) put in all Shell petrols worldwide in Fifties/Sixties?
When I joined Shell International Marketing in 1959 on our intro course we were taught that ICA had been developed in WW2 by Shell as emergency measure to inhibit spark plug gumming up. To get ultra long range bombers were being operated at thin mixtures / low revs with the result (and I can still quote exactly from our Shell lab tutor) that "at one time we were losing more Lancasters over Berlin from engine failure than from enemy action". For some reason ICA was later banned for aviation use but for many years was the key USP for our (Shell) retail sales.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: 4wings

I believe the additive you were alluding to (if I am correct) is TCP or Tri Chresel Phosphate (possible misspelling). It was added to the fuel to scavenge the lead keeping it from building up on the valve stems and the plugs. When I was in the USCG working on helicopters off of an Icebreaker we had two helicopters. One was an HTL-1 (Bell 47) that ran on unleaded or very low lead 80 octane gas and the other was an HO3-S (S-51) that ran on 91 octane fuel that had a lot of lead in it. However we only had one fuel tank to draw from and it had 91 octane fuel in it so we periodically added TCP to the fuel storage tank to minimize the lead induced problems on the Bell. Even with the TCP in the fuel we never got more than 60 hours on the Bell plugs and the engine had to be changed at about 400 hours. The TCP had no effect on the S-51.

:cool: