fuel vapour injection system

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by holzhoechi

I think when you can inject vapour only into your burning chamber, it would give me better fuel economy.
A lot of unburnt fuel goes out the catalytic exhaust.

The fuel is burnt.It's the harvested and useful Btu's which are the issue.
There's a lot of waste heat leaving the engine via the cooling system and exhaust gas.
A Toyota Prius with an adiabatic engine would only get about 130 mpg on the highway.
I would take your friend to task for suggesting that they're experiencing 430-mpg.
The old vapor carburetors claimed only 150-mpg.And that was at a steady 35-mph.(that's all the car would do.35-mph).

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The OP asked an honest question. He was not trolling or selling. You and others have jumped on the "I know more than you, so there". A few have been courteous and provided good discussion that the OP seems to have digested.

I disagree. I gave the benefit of my doubt early on, and the same questions continue to be posed unmodified. No technical questions, just the assumption that because patents have issued there is technical merit.

I continue to be courteous, I am sorry you do not see it that way. I do not presume to know the intimate details, but I do know that this blind stumbling and experimentation leads nowhere when enticed with fairy tales about increasing mileage by 1000%.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I had a over lean condition from my lean burn system while tuning. The fuel vapor system was enable and I had a intake back fire that caused a explosion and took out my secondary fuel line. After this happen I removed the fuel vapor system and made a promise to myself never to go there again. The likelihood of a intake back fire is very high when running a fuel vapor system. This can kill you and anyone near the vehicle. So be very Careful!!!!!

I had something like that happen to me too. Just on the lean burn carb. I was driving along at pretty high speed working the gas to keep it real lean and it gave a nice intake pop. Even with the windows rolled up it made my ears ring.
Later I noticed the metal air cleaner didn't go back together quite the same as before. It was more like a nitrous pop.

Originally Posted by elhigh

I don't think 400mpg is even possible. That would require an energy consumption of less than 90 watt-hours per mile, less energy than is actually consumed in moving the air out of the way of the car.

Typical production electric vehicles see between 200 to 500 watt hours per mile, battery to wheel.

Want to roughly double the fuel milage on carbureted gasoline engine do what I did. Get a wide ban O2 meter and tune the carb for lean burn then EOC it for all its worth.

Want to get over 100mpg out of a car, just find the smallest car you can and put a little diesel engine in it. There is a metro with a Kubota diesel getting something like 90mpg in the city.

Use a wining combination, don't chase hot vapor carb unicorns.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

I disagree. I gave the benefit of my doubt early on, and the same questions continue to be posed unmodified. No technical questions, just the assumption that because patents have issued there is technical merit.

I continue to be courteous, I am sorry you do not see it that way. I do not presume to know the intimate details, but I do know that this blind stumbling and experimentation leads nowhere when enticed with fairy tales about increasing mileage by 1000%.

You just called his inquiry "blind stumbling and experimentation".

I do hope the OP learns about combustion. I hope he continues to question with an open mind. I hope he sees past the fairy tale scammer claims and goes out to find what is actually possible.

I did. And by the time I was 17 I had already built functioning lean burn carb engines, water injection systems and hydrogen augmented engines. At 18 I had a "vapor carburetor" working to some degree. It was at this point that I realized my understanding of the physical world was limited so I embarked on the university path. All because I bought plans from the back of Popular Mechanics for the Pogue 200 mpg carb and other wacky devices.

I can tell you with no uncertainty that hot vapor engines do work and can see gains over cold air intake engines. The engine that sees detonation is in essence running beyond its safe enthalpy limits. As Oilpan4 and pgfpro refreshed us on, the backfire and detonation can be very violent. As you approach the point of detonation, ignition timing needs to be pulled back (retarded) due to the increasing flame speed. At some point, you don't need a spark, the whole fuel mix oxidizes spontaneously (detonates). Controlled detonation is the goal of Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) research that has been discussed here and in other venues. There is little question about the validity of the science behind the research. Unfortunately, HCCI engines are beyond the scope of the garage tinkerer. Hot vapor engines are not. Some engines don't need a lot of additional heat to enter detonation and those engines would be the most ideal to use as experimental engines. However, we cannot expect to see the 50+% thermal efficiencies of the HCCI engines. But, a few additional percentage points gained can become additional miles per gallon.

So why don't we see hot vapor engines in production? Because the engines produce prodigious amounts of NOx. As was said in these forums and in other places, emissions killed the Smokey Hot Vapor Engine. Manufacturers know about high enthalpy engines. They also know about the downfalls and have bypassed these engines for other solutions.

Again, to reiterate, vaporizing a fuel does little to increase combustion efficiency. It is the heat that is usually added to vaporize the gasoline that is the real game changer. As the conditions for detonation are approached the thermochemistry in the fuel mixture become complex and exciting.

So I chased the unicorns. And I found them full of stuffing and fluff.

But the meadows they grazed on . . .

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by holzhoechi

In this patent they have increased the mpg to about 48 on a 125 cubic inches engine (2 Liter engine). And that was even in the 90s.

I think that is amazing!!

Why we don't have such a car available now?

I've achieved 51mpg once and 47-48 all summer long in a '99 Tracer, 2.0 with an automatic transmission.

[holzhoechi]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I've achieved 51mpg once and 47-48 all summer long in a '99 Tracer, 2.0 with an automatic transmission.

great result. How did you do that?
With your driving technique or something else?

[Frank Lee]

<50mph cruising.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Typical production electric vehicles see between 200 to 500 watt hours per mile, battery to wheel.

Right, the super-low-consumption models were tiny things.

I think the Edison2 VLC Electric version came close to delivering a consistent 100w-h/mi consumption rate at conventional speeds. But that thing is like driving a wingless plane, it's all about the aero and weight savings with those guys.

As it should be. That's an approach that is demonstrably effective, every time, for everyone.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

<50mph cruising.

...on the prairie.

[Frank Lee]

There's more opportunity for higher fe in the hills, especially with a stick.