EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Unicorn Corral (https://ecomodder.com/forum/unicorn-corral.html)
-   -   fuel vapour injection system (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/fuel-vapour-injection-system-32807.html)

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 11:00 AM

fuel vapour injection system
 
Hello everybody

I found some very interesting patents: https://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search?hl=en

my goal is to build an easy to produce vapour system to install it on a gasoline/ diesel engine.

Patent: US4458654 A

you like to discuss it?

looking forward for some interesting thoughts

Rudy

Frank Lee 09-22-2015 12:22 PM

You first.

UFO 09-22-2015 02:07 PM

With your first post started in the UC, I have to assume you know vaporizing fuel before injection does not significantly change the thermal efficiency of the engine or the combustion efficiency of the fuel.

Given that, are you looking for further refutation of this idea?

wickydude 09-22-2015 03:31 PM

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post467012

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 03:37 PM

Hi UFO

thanks very much for thoughts, I don't want to refute that at all.

I have already an HHO dry cell system installed. I am just about to change the PWM and EFIE controller. With the new PWM/EFIE I should get better fuel economy results.

With the old system, fuel economy about 3 %.
with the new system, I am sure to get more.

But with a HHO system the fuel economy is limited, that's why I want to try to vaporise the fuel first.

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 03:44 PM

Hi wickydude
thanks for that link.

I called this guy (463 mpg) even up for some ideas/ plans, unfortunately I didn't get any useful infos from him.
But he did something outstanding.

I wish I could build a system like half the economy from him.

wickydude 09-22-2015 04:03 PM

You didn't get any useful info because it's a scam. Doesn't work. Better find something else to fill your time. Thought you'd get that from the linked thread.
Unsubscribing...

UFO 09-22-2015 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494266)
Hi UFO

thanks very much for thoughts, I don't want to refute that at all.

I have already an HHO dry cell system installed. I am just about to change the PWM and EFIE controller. With the new PWM/EFIE I should get better fuel economy results.

With the old system, fuel economy about 3 %.
with the new system, I am sure to get more.

But with a HHO system the fuel economy is limited, that's why I want to try to vaporise the fuel first.

Can you explain how you expect to get increased fuel efficiency by vaporizing your fuel if you understand it does not change thermal or combustion efficiency?

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 04:26 PM

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.

2000mc 09-22-2015 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494240)
Hello everybody

I found some very interesting patents: https://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search?hl=en

my goal is to build an easy to produce vapour system to install it on a gasoline/ diesel engine.

Patent: US4458654 A

you like to discuss it?

looking forward for some interesting thoughts

Rudy

In patents by manufacturers which sited that patent, they seemed to focus on cold starts, but not continuously trying to vaporize fuel. Which lead to me finding so information on Delphi heated injectors, focused on improving cold starts when using ethanol. The injectors were heated for 4seconds before cranking, and then left on for 86seconds

In Figure 15 we can see that although focus was not fuel consumption improvements, the total obtained reduction was 0.4% during FTP75 emissions cycle. When heating was activated the burned fuel decreased from 43g to 36g and fuel at exhaust (unburned) decreased from 7g to 2g. http://delphi.com/docs/default-sourc...f.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Woohoo 0.4%! Take that unicorn corral!

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 07:09 PM

the best fuel vapour system I have seen so far:

patent Publication number US4862859 A,

https://www.google.com/patents/US486...hVmgXIKHRZ0CN4

this is an example with a carburetor. I like to see a system without a carburetor,

because I want to install it on a car from now not on 30 years old museum.

UFO 09-22-2015 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494276)
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.

I am not sure what type of engine you are considering, however if 99% of the fuel was vaporized without such a device, that would leave a potential improvement of 1%. I think I am being generous in my estimate.

holzhoechi 09-22-2015 07:32 PM

Are you sure about these 99 %? then it would make no sense to me testing a vapour system.

I red that a catalytic converter is mainly used as an emissions control device that converts toxic pollutants to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction.

and I thought !! the catalytic converter is also used for the unburnt fuel to burn/vaporise?

UFO 09-22-2015 08:41 PM

You are basically correct. Emissions requirements are fairly restrictive, and catalytic converters can only deal with a certain amount of HC. The engine must be fairly clean already, or you will poison or cause a fire in your converter. That's why car manufacturers started implementing fuel injection along with catalytic exhaust converters. There are very few vehicles that had carburetors and catalysts both, it was a quick transition.

markweatherill 09-23-2015 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494276)
a lot of unburnt fuel goes out the catalytic exhaust.

no it doesn't.

deejaaa 09-23-2015 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494276)
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.

this quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 494273)
Can you explain how you expect to get increased fuel efficiency by vaporizing your fuel if you understand it does not change thermal or combustion efficiency?

and your answer:
Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494298)
Are you sure about these 99 %? he said he was being generous, so, no! then it would make no sense to me testing a vapour system. it never made sense in the beginning.
I red that a catalytic converter is mainly used as an emissions control device that converts toxic pollutants to less toxic pollutants by catalyzing a redox reaction.
and I thought !! the catalytic converter is also used for the unburnt fuel to burn/vaporise? and? what does that have to do with economy? are you going to run your car off the catalytic converter?

do you really think most of us think you were born yesterday? have you no radio, tv, internet, newspaper, ect in Bukarest (can't even get that right, it's spelled Bucharest)? do you understand the nuance of the English language? there won't be an in-depth discussion of vaporizing fuel here, use google search and read away. sorry to be the a$$ but felt the need.

some_other_dave 09-23-2015 08:19 PM

Not all city names are spelled the same in every language. For instance, "Bukarest" is how the Germans would spell Bucharest. (And some people from that part of the world spell it "Bucaresti"--not sure if the Romanians themselves do or not.) And, if the OP is indeed from Romania, he/she is probably not working in his/her first language, so expecting him/her to get the nuances of English may be a bit much.

That doesn't make fuel vapor systems less of a scam, but you might want to cut people a break.

-soD

deejaaa 09-24-2015 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by some_other_dave (Post 494379)
...........That doesn't make fuel vapor systems less of a scam, but you might want to cut people a break.

-soD

trolls, i feel, need no breaks. sorry.

holzhoechi 09-24-2015 03:18 PM

thanks some_other_dave for your post. I am indeed not from Bukarest/Bucharest/Bucuresti.
I am from Switzerland but working and living in Romania.
And my native language is also not english. So much to the "nuances"!!

I like to install/test a fuel vapour system on a car with my funds and resources available.

I have seen another very interesting example:
https://www.google.com/patents/US486...hVmgXIKHRZ0CN4

As I see it. It works by transforming heat from the engine coolant system and/or exhaust gases to the fuel mixture/vapourized fuel.

UFO 09-24-2015 03:53 PM

If you cannot explain or understand why you think this will work, I guarantee it will not.

some_other_dave 09-24-2015 06:59 PM

I applaud you wanting to experiment. Please make sure that you carefully account for things that could affect your fuel economy in your experiment. If nothing else, make sure you do a lot of repeat testing with and without your modification. (See the post on "A/B/A Testing" on one of the other forums around here for some examples of how to do that.)

If you are merely looking at this technology to see if it does or does not work with your own eyes, then bravo to you. If you are looking to actually save gas, I would encourage you to look elsewhere for results. (How you drive generally has many times more effect on your fuel economy than anything you can do to your vehicle mechanically.)

The theory that the vapor systems work on is flawed. More than 99% of the fuel that goes into the engine is actually burned; it does not go through the engine unchanged. Even if changing the fuel into vapor helps it burn more completely, you're talking about less than 1% possible improvement.

Regardless of if it works or not, if you do implement it, please let us know the results. I'm pretty sure the results will be "no improvement" or "worse in some way", but you may find something that everyone else has missed. (Except people trying to make a buck selling such systems, of course.)

-soD

iveyjh 09-24-2015 11:59 PM

Smoky Yunicks Patent
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494477)
thanks some_other_dave for your post. I am indeed not from Bukarest/Bucharest/Bucuresti.
I am from Switzerland but working and living in Romania.
And my native language is also not english. So much to the "nuances"!!

I like to install/test a fuel vapour system on a car with my funds and resources available.

I have seen another very interesting example:
https://www.google.com/patents/US486...hVmgXIKHRZ0CN4

As I see it. It works by transforming heat from the engine coolant system and/or exhaust gases to the fuel mixture/vapourized fuel.

That's a good one, don't let these guy's discourage you :thumbup:

oil pan 4 10-11-2015 05:42 PM

Some of us already have that.
Its called fuel injection with lean burn and warm air intake.

elhigh 10-12-2015 10:56 AM

I think it's great you want to make a car do better than its original manufacturer specified.

That said, I want to caution you against a few things.

I noticed back near the beginning of the thread "wickydude" posted a link to someone claiming 400+mpg. That sticks in my head, and let me explain why:

I don't believe it is mathematically possible.

I don't have the numbers right here in front of me, and frankly these kind of discussions don't ever encourage me to go find them because it always devolves into a pie fight. But I will lay these facts out:

The maximum heat efficiency of a good automotive engine is about 37%. Diesels are a bit better. If you put 100 BTU worth of heat energy into an engine in the form of fuel, the very best you can get out of it will be 37 BTU worth of work. That's it. No exceptions.

Even if you approach the theoretical maximum for a heat engine, about 58%, (still trying to remember where I saw that for reference) it's still not going to get you close to 400mpg, and 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.

I have seen only a couple of vehicles even approach that at anything like road-legal speeds, and they were ultra-tiny, ultra-streamlined electric vehicles which enjoyed ridiculously good motive efficiencies compared to a gas engined car. 90 watt-hours per mile, but only in a vehicle that would make a coffin feel roomy and luxurious. Those things could manage the feat because they weren't moving much air aside and weren't moving it very far. The displaced masses and the magnitude of displacement were minute compared to even a compact car.

Do you see my point? It is a violation of physics. You are asking it to put out more work than it has energy to perform.

holzhoechi 10-12-2015 11:44 AM

Hi elhigh
Thanks very much for infos. From the physical standpoint I agree with you.

I just want to say it is possible to run an engine on fuel vapours only. According United States Patent 4862859 stated earlier in this thread and in many other.
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 better do not ask that question, that would probably go to far.

If no company is willing to build such a car, I want to build one.
Unfortunately its not that easy.
You can see a lot of youtube videos about fuel vapour.
Most of them are wishful thinking they would have more fuel economy.

None of the infos I have, I could say "YES, that I like to have installed on my car".

Most of us know that the technology is ready to jump in when no oil is available anymore.

I am just fed up paying so much for the gasoline/diesel, when I see a car can run with a lot less.
Sorry but that has to be said.

UFO 10-12-2015 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 496282)
Hi elhigh
Thanks very much for infos. From the physical standpoint I agree with you.

I just want to say it is possible to run an engine on fuel vapours only. According United States Patent 4862859 stated earlier in this thread and in many other.
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 better do not ask that question, that would probably go to far.

If no company is willing to build such a car, I want to build one.
Unfortunately its not that easy.
You can see a lot of youtube videos about fuel vapour.
Most of them are wishful thinking they would have more fuel economy.

None of the infos I have, I could say "YES, that I like to have installed on my car".

Most of us know that the technology is ready to jump in when no oil is available anymore.

I am just fed up paying so much for the gasoline/diesel, when I see a car can run with a lot less.
Sorry but that has to be said.

Gasoline engines already run on "fuel vapour", the liquid must evaporate before it oxidizes. You seem to have no idea how combustion works, so how do you know these ridiculous mpg claims are true?

RustyLugNut 10-12-2015 01:06 PM

Do YOU know how combustion works?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 496283)
Gasoline engines already run on "fuel vapour", the liquid must evaporate before it oxidizes. You seem to have no idea how combustion works, so how do you know these ridiculous mpg claims are true?

The ridiculous claims aside, there is merit to hot vapor engines though the gains to be found are only in the percentage range and not in orders of magnitude.

Be careful when you put down some person's knowledge base, especially when it is in an area outside your expertise.

UFO 10-12-2015 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut (Post 496285)
The ridiculous claims aside, there is merit to hot vapor engines though the gains to be found are only in the percentage range and not in orders of magnitude.

Be careful when you put down some person's knowledge base, especially when it is in an area outside your expertise.

I only said what I said because there seems to be tacit credence give to these claims. And that's also why I said "seems" because there is no technical discussion presented to demonstrate the apparent lack of understanding.

RustyLugNut 10-12-2015 03:27 PM

This still doesn't excuse your hubris.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 496297)
I only said what I said because there seems to be tacit credence give to these claims. And that's also why I said "seems" because there is no technical discussion presented to demonstrate the apparent lack of understanding.

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.

holzhoechi, the useful posts pretty much sketch it out - you cannot double or quadruple your mileage via simple vaporization of the gasoline. However, "hot air engines", if properly implemented, can help close the thermal efficiency gap between diesels and gasoline spark ignition engines. Problematically, the subject is highly specialized and involved. Consequently, the application is just as involved. Proof of that is seen in the work of pfgpro and iveyjh and others on this forum. Their "high enthalpy engines" do work but with considerably more effort and skill than simply putting a bubbler bottle in the intake of your engine.

I repeat what others have said about seeking economy for economical reasons - look to driving techniques and aero improvements before fooling with engine operations. But, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, you are welcome to experiment with us in the world of engine mods.

pgfpro 10-12-2015 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut (Post 496304)
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.

holzhoechi, the useful posts pretty much sketch it out - you cannot double or quadruple your mileage via simple vaporization of the gasoline. However, "hot air engines", if properly implemented, can help close the thermal efficiency gap between diesels and gasoline spark ignition engines. Problematically, the subject is highly specialized and involved. Consequently, the application is just as involved. Proof of that is seen in the work of pfgpro and iveyjh and others on this forum. Their "high enthalpy engines" do work but with considerably more effort and skill than simply putting a bubbler bottle in the intake of your engine.

I repeat what others have said about seeking economy for economical reasons - look to driving techniques and aero improvements before fooling with engine operations. But, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, you are welcome to experiment with us in the world of engine mods.

On my setup I was running a waste solvent system that was heated with coolant and exhaust heat. Then it mixed with compressed turbo air that was above 200*F. At that point the waste solvent was in vapor form and directed about 3" from intake valves. I seen around a 5% increase in fuel mileage. I never tested it with pump fuel but did a evaporation test, pump fuel verses waste solvent and the results were the waste solvent evaporation rate was twice as fast as the pump fuel. I think todays pump fuel has a much stricter VOC requirement and evaporates at a much slower rate then yesterday fuels.

With this said I will say please be careful when building a fuel vapor injection system. While testing this Summer 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!!!!!

aerohead 10-12-2015 06:39 PM

unburnt fuel
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 494276)
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 10-12-2015 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut (Post 496304)
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 10-12-2015 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgfpro (Post 496329)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elhigh (Post 496279)
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 10-13-2015 03:54 AM

Courteous?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO (Post 496337)
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 10-13-2015 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holzhoechi (Post 496282)
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 10-13-2015 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 496385)
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 10-13-2015 12:07 PM

<50mph cruising.

elhigh 10-13-2015 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 496352)

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 10-13-2015 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 496398)
<50mph cruising.

...on the prairie.

Frank Lee 10-13-2015 12:46 PM

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com