200 MPG Carburetor Talk

[mja1]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Honest, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but that statement says you know nothing about Otto or Diesel compression/pressure mappings or their implications to engine operation, performance or efficiency.

I repeat, go read about HCCI before you dig a deeper hole here.

truthfully I just get so frustrated with this I just shouldn't even talk about it.

HCCI/diesel engine must time the fuel entry and ignites with pressurized *air* BTDC. There is no 'dieseling' or 'extra heat' applied in this case.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by mja1

truthfully I just get so frustrated with this I just shouldn't even talk about it.

...then, I suggest that you don't.

DIESEL -- fuel is injected into AIR within cylinder that's already at CR and is adjusted & timed for optimum FE or HP and is affected by fuel cetane rating. [ P.S.--diesel injection ranges from BTDC to ATDC ]

GASOLINE(Normal Aspiration) -- fuel is injected into AIR creating an A/F mixture behind the valve...timing is needed to ensure coordination with opening valves and VVT timings; both quantity & timing affect possible octane requirements for proper operation.

GASOLINE(Direct Injection) -- fuel is injected into AIR within cylinder that's already at CR and timing is adjusted & timed for optimum FE or HP, just like diesel; but, is affected lesser by fuel octane rating.

HCCI (Homogenious Charge Compression Ignition) -- combined SI and CI operation where "spark ignition (SI)" is needed only during periods of unstable compustion and "compression ignition (CI)" operation is otherwise used and most viable & beneficial (high AIR content for lean-burn and NOx cooling by AIR volume). Both cetane and octane requirements apply depending upon which fuel is being used.

[mja1]

old tele - in the 'vapor engine' that has been created in the past, there is no pressurized air like diesels, only the movement of air by engine vacuum in a traditional gas engine. There is no 'dieseling' either by pressurized air or hot spot, it is a 'run on' condition but not a traditional one, only the movement of the cylinders creates combustion. I am trying to help, tell me what you don't understand about the process and I'll try to write it out.

edit - I did read a bunch on the HCCI engine thank you for telling me about this style of feuling, I guess we could say it is a style of HCCI. Though from what I've read not the same concept. Think 8-12:1 stock compression ratios with the ability to run on spark until the 'proper' combustion temps are reached. Spark would never be used while at the normal operating temps of the engine. The existence of an ignition system would allow for piggy-back injectors to increase power if we could drop combustion temps to roll back into spark. You could say its a cross between a gas and HCCI if it makes you feel better. There is no 'load restriction' in this style. It could work from 7-30:1 AFR for steel/iron engine in and out of spark. It would not be an easy task.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by mja1

A high pressure fuel charge being injected much before the throttle body will not allow it to be vaporized as soon, or have as much control over throttle input at extremely high AFR.

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

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.

- - - - -

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.

Originally Posted by mja1

The entire idea is to use engine heat to make combustion hotter, (all of the heat lost by the engine can be used to further increase combustion temps, closing in on a near perfect/max efficiency of a 4stroke based only on the materials of the engine used) it isn't possible with high pressure fuel.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mja1

Open up your mind I am not trying to argue with you I am trying to tell you how to run an engine without spark, it will not be accomplished with EFI.

I am not trying to argue with you ... I'm sorry you misunderstood.

My mind is open to discussion on the technical merits of your claims and proposals.

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.

- - - - -

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

Without spark is not automatically more energy efficient ... it might be ... it might not be... depending on the specifics.

For example ... my current spark ignition engine has been tested to achieve higher peak efficiencies than some diesel engines running without a spark.

I'd rather have the higher energy efficiencies with a spark than lower efficiencies without one... but again it is not as simple as spark good or spark bad.

- - - - - -

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

Originally Posted by mja1

PM sent to link of write old up.

For others on this thread I'm taking the liberty of sharing the links you PMed me ... that way others can read them as well if they so choose.

Originally Posted by mja1

View topic - How to run an engine without spark? • GBodyForum.com - '78-'88 GM G Body Community

What Ever Happened To Smokey's Hot-Vapor Engine? - Hot Rod Magazine

Smokey Yunick’s Hot Vapor Fiero; 51 mpg and 0-60 in less than 6 Seconds! See and hear it run in our exclusive VIDEO! : Legendary Collector Cars

you can read about the iron duke 2.5, s10 forum has some good info

Originally Posted by mja1

It's no 'Unicorn' idea, its been done before and there are patents to prove it. 200mpg no, 40-60 mpg with twice stock power yes.

Patents are not proof ... that is not how the patent process works.

The idea of your links uses
#1> A Turbo Charger ( no magic there )
#2> Waste heat recovery ( no magic there )
#3> Fuel vaporization ( no magic there )

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.

reporting ___ MPG does not tell us enough to know if it is any good or not ... We would have to know under what conditions it was able to achieve that MPG net result ... than we would have a proper context to put the results in.

For example ... Smokey's Fiero is reported in your links to achieve 'as high as 51 MPG' ... any time you see the qualifier ... 'as high as' it should immediately set off a warning light ...

But it doesn't tell us the context in which it achieve that 51 MPG ... the MPG number by itself is not enough information ... at the bare minimum we would want the average speed ... and ideally we would want to know some details about the route / course , like elevation changes , was it a round trip or one way ... etc.

If I make some assumptions ... say he averaged about ~50MPH ... on flat level ground ... no wind ... no significant changes to the Stock Fiero's aerodynamics or weight ... if his ~50 MPG was achieved under those assumptions ... he accomplished roughly an average of ~24% energy efficiency ... which is fairly good , not bad ... but nothing earth shattering ... and there are many EFI spark ICEs that can do better than ~24%.

Originally Posted by mja1

(timing fuel isnt needed without ignition)

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

There is a finite period of time during the power stroke for the fuel to do work ... timing matters with or without spark.

I didn't use 'ignition' because Smokey's example you gave still had fuel ignition ... it just wasn't from a spark anymore.

Originally Posted by mja1

I see why this subforum is called what it is . I guess discussing is pointless,

Discuss it ... sure this if the place.
Blind acceptance of any claims random people make... no.

Originally Posted by mja1

and the only way to prove it is to build it. It's been a dream of mine for a while now recreating the concept, but don't have enough time or resources to go ahead with a long term project like this right now.

Best of luck.
If you do any MPG number posts ... be sure to include the context details.

[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.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by mja1

higher temperatures are needed to 'vaporize' a higher pressure fluid.

Only if you want to vaporize the liquid under the high pressure ... as apposed to the whole world that uses the pressure difference between high and low pressure to kinetically vaporize the liquid.

If anything the fuel from a high pressure EFI system drops in temperature as it vaporizes in the kinetic vaporization when it moves to the lower pressure... and it still vaporizes just fine.

- - - - - -

I don't have to raise the temperature on a paint gun that vaporizes liquid paint despite it using higher pressures.

I don't have to use higher temperatures for the humidifier that I have that vaporizes water with pressure.

The world over and over again in a wide variety of applications vaporizes liquids by using higher pressure.

You seem to be claiming that those devices can't possibly work without some type of heater ... which they don't have.

- - - - -

Also ... it doesn't stay higher pressure ... there is a pressure difference between the fuel and the combustion chamber it is going into ... that pressure difference is what causes the force that moves the fuel mass ... lower pressure difference means less mass moves ... try to see how much vaporization you get on a paint gun using your theory of lower pressure causes more vaporization ... hint it doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by mja1

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

Originally Posted by mja1

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.

(bold added above)
You can't have it both ways.

We want timing or we don't ... hint ... to avoid fuel being used during the other 3 non-power strokes in a 4 stroke cycle ... yes you do want timing.

Additionally the combustion event is not instantaneous ... it takes time to happen during the power stroke ... which means we have other timing desires as well.

- - - - - -

Without your self contradictory statement on timing ... the only thing left is how fast we want the fuel to vaporize.

I'm not 100% sold on the idea that we always want it to vaporize as as quickly as possible ... we want the best combustion event ... that is not necessarily always from a uniform fuel / air mixture ... it is also not necessarily always from a specific degree/% of vaporization.

Can you at least provide one real world example that agrees with your claim of more vaporization from lower pressures? ... as of right now ... it disagrees with what I've seen in the real world from real world devices... low pressure liquid water coming out of a hose doesn't vaporize nearly as much as it does if the same liquid water at the same temperature is at a higher pressure... the low pressure water just kind of flows out as a liquid barely vaporizing at all.

Originally Posted by mja1

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

roll your eyes all you like ... I'll take the side of proven thermodynamics ... and I think it's a solid position.

The maximum possible efficiency of any heat engine is = 1 - Tc/Th ... the Tc is the cold part of the cycle ... when you increased the engines Th you increased the difference between them and that alone increased the maximum possible efficiency.

The ideal gas law equation you quote is separate from the efficiency of the engine... although it also seems to disagrees with you previous claims on lower pressure vaporization.

Originally Posted by mja1

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

It can be once we know enough about the context the MPG was achieved... which is why the context is important.

For example the Fiero of your link has a known CdA so if we know the vehicle speed relative to the air , we can calculate the energy lost to wind resistance for given wind conditions... it has a known weight ... if we put on it tires with a known Crr we know how much energy it lost to rolling resistance... if we know the elevation is not changing than there is no energy spent on gravity ... etc.

So if in the link you provided we assume he averaged ~50 MPH on flat ground with no wind ... we know reasonably well how much energy it would take to accomplish that from gasoline ... gasoline has a known energy content per gallon ... which means we know he was no better than about ~24% efficient if those assumptions are true ... of course if he averaged a slower speed than that than he actually had a lower efficiency... I doubt he average much higher than that ... especially considering the language used of 'as high as' ... for all we know that 51MPG could have been his best case that he got under slow P&G conditions ... the kind of conditions that people got 164MPG for 2,254 Miles out of a Gen-1 Honda Insight... context always matters.

~24% efficiency is fairly good ... I congratulate his efforts ... but my OEM spark ignition EFI ICE does better than that... and supposedly he was running the complete system you are describing.

Originally Posted by mja1

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

There are gasoline fueled engines that run without sparks.

I'm fine with research examples ... especially is the technical details are well documented.

Originally Posted by mja1

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

I didn't specify locations ... just that EFI and not using a spark are not mutually exclusive things.

Also ... I'm a bit fuzzy on what type of setup you are describing ... EFI can be put just about anywhere along the fuel delivery system ... although if you put it some places it isn't direct injection anymore... and of course some locations have certain advantages.

Originally Posted by mja1

There is nothing revolutionary about it, I said there wasn't, it has been done multiple times.

I didn't mean revolutionary as in not having been done ... I mean not revolutionary as in your links final result of about ~24% efficiency is above average maybe ... but not particularly high by modern standards.

Originally Posted by mja1

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.

What specific example are you referring to?
Your ~24% efficient Fiero example?

I don't agree with your absolute language ... but ... I'll digress on that for the moment... at least pending clarification on what example you are referring it to.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by mx73

there actually was a 200mpg carb back in the 1940s, i have some paperwork on it.

If you weren't joking, you just locked in a FAIL.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by mx73

there actually was a 200mpg carb back in the 1940s, i have some paperwork on it.

Let's be clear what you are stating.
The some iron lead sled with ALL the ineffecienceies if the 1940s......had a carb bolted on.....AND THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE........and the CAR got 200 mpg

please.......

show us the papers.........

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by mcrews

Let's be clear what you are stating.
The some iron lead sled with ALL the ineffecienceies if the 1940s......had a carb bolted on.....AND THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE........and the CAR got 200 mpg

please.......

show us the papers.........

maybe he got the 200 MPG while at idle coasting down a long hill.

[mja1]

I am man. It's not that you don't understand an intake valve opening to let a volume of air in is not the same as timing a fuel charge from an injector. The same with comparing the example of preheating fuel to 450 degrees to vaporizing from a paint gun, etc etc

It's not that you don't understand, you pick apart every sentence, I tried to have a healthy discussion, your aim isn't worthy, it's to put down everything I write as if I were some fool who driveled bs with every keystroke. I tried to continue a discussion in the PM as I sensed it was becoming more of a personal thing somehow. There's something more to the discussion than what we're talking about, I don't appreciate it, and I'm done with it.