[mja1]

Originally Posted by IamIan

You've got the vaporization and pressure concept backwards.
You've got the control backwards as well... EFI gives more control.

the cam grind and intake/exhaust lobes are the only timing is needed in a gas engine that has no spark.

You are claiming the equivalent of the lower pressure liquid flow somehow will mist ( vaporize ) out of the hose or the sprinkler more than it will under higher pressures ... anyone with a garden hose knows this is backwards ... at lower pressures it vaporizes / mists less.

higher temperatures are needed to 'vaporize' a higher pressure fluid. is a preheater and turbo enough to vaporize 50psi fuel? maybe, is it enough to do it safely without millions of dollars in equipment? no.

Also no carburetor has as much precession control of the fuel flow as a EFI can have ... at any AFR... it is the very nature of how the two different systems work... and it is well known and well established... a EFI system can intentionally vary the AFR at different parts inside the the combustion chamber ... and it can do that dynamically with precision timing.

Concept to think about - the same volume of fuel either by carb or EFI. We don't want to control any fuel timing, therefore we want the fuel to vaporize as quickly as possible, carb is the key.

Increasing the temperature difference ... not the absolute temperature of the engine ... from hot to cold ... is a basic principle of thermodynamics ... and it has nothing to do with higher or lower pressures itself... despite your claim here.

right because PV=nKbT, where the pressure of a gas has nothing to do with temperature. Or avg vel of gas <v^2> = or prop. to: KbT where KE depends only on temperature have nothing to do with eachother, and neither does pressure

If anything operating at higher pressures has a general historic trend of higher operating efficiency... although it is not directly a one to one relationship... and is more complicated than a simple higher is better kind of statement.

engine efficiency is not directly related to gas mileage. Top fuel or F1 engines are extremely efficient.

However I do not blindly agree with just anything someone claims ... no matter who they are.

If you or anyone makes claims that I see errors with or I have some reason to disagree with ... I think it is perfectly reasonable for the discussion for me to point out those errors , or issues I disagree with ... discussion is a back and forth ... it is not blind acceptance of any claim someone makes.

I respect this

Running an engine without a spark is nothing new ... it has been done for a very long time ... a wide variety of different ways.

hopefully we are both talking about gasoline engines, most of these are technical/research examples that we have.

Also , an engine can be run without a spark and with an EFI ... the two are not mutually exclusive.

It cannot be directly injected just previous to the intake runners, the fuel will be much too cool.

All the pieces are well known and well understood... this isn't revolutionary.

the 'Unicorn' idea is the 200 MPG Carburetor ... these other ideas are not the same thing ... but they are also not the automatic MPG benefit either.

There is nothing revolutionary about it, I said there wasn't, it has been done multiple times. the '200mpg carb' claims to use a 'vapor' at throttle input, but with just this, we're not going to see much, if any, difference in gas mileage or engine efficiency.

Needed ... maybe not ... can be beneficial ... why yes it can be.

Using EFI as the main fueling source cannot be in any way beneficial if the intake valves control a vaporized intake charge of a specific volume of gas (fuel/air). In this example only.