Gasoline VAPOR?

[Logic]

Opel P1 376 MPG!!!! in 1973
Used fuel vaporization.

I NB that it was NOT a practical car/vehicle.
BUT
With an EV where you only have to supply the average load, as electricity, using constant rpm, it works!
Not only does/will it work: it'll work with the (cheap) 1973 carb and ignition! In town!

Now that cuts down on expensive and heavy batteries and eliminates range anxiety.
This is where vapour or gas has a future IMHO.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

This is why, in my mind, vaporized gasoline engines should be comparable to propane or natural gas engines, with one exception: Unless you heat your entire intake, as soon as the vaporized fuel hits the intake air it will condense back into a liquid. It doesn't stay at that 300 °F or whatever once you mix it with 100 °F or cooler air.

Good point.
There is some other very interesting physics here... but too soon to get into that.
(I research the cr@p out of stuff before opening my mouth)

I NB that pgfpro is doing both (via turbo/compressive heat) enabling him to ignite and burn a VERY lean, 30/1 mixture.

He uses pre-chambers and a tiny dose of NOS to work that ignite and fast burn magic,/
NB that his 'throttle' is mixture changing... No/low pumping losses.

Without pre-chambers a less lean, hot mixture through a gas carb should work well.

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Very true. Anything that makes fuel burn more quickly has the potential to increase fuel efficiency. One way is simple to have a slower turning engine. Higher loads also lead to quicker combustion. You can accomplish both of those by just having taller gearing.

Yep; old Listers ran on the smell of an oil rag on low (by today's standards) pressure fuel pumps.
(A long conrod and slow 'air' pumping help too)
But in a car the weight of the engine affects the fuel consumption of the vehicle as a whole, so increasing rpm makes sense from that POV.
So, besides vaporization and NOS the other way to speed up combustion is Hydrogen... IF you can produce it economically on-baord.

Exhaust temperature is high enough for the steam reformation reaction, but pressure..!
So with the correct catalysts and a drop or 2 of water/steam in the mix one should get a bit from a slightly modded vapour system..!
Failing that; a sparkplug can easily be made into a mini, post vapour system, MIT Plasmatron for a bit of the vapour.
(now bought out by a 'shell company' and shelved)

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Logic

Opel P1 376 MPG!!!! in 1973
Used fuel vaporization.

I NB that it was NOT a practical car/vehicle.
BUT
With an EV where you only have to supply the average load, as electricity, using constant rpm, it works!
Not only does/will it work: it'll work with the (cheap) 1973 carb and ignition! In town!

Now now that cuts down on expensive and heavy batteries and eliminates range anxiety.
This is where vapour or gas has a future IMHO.

These are my thoughts as well. Thus, I am willing to hack my 2012 Tesla Model S . . . or not. Teslas are cheaply found because of Elon's antics. I have an air-cooled aero engine that was slated for a drone before the grant got dumped. I see a few grant offerings for range extension technologies . . .

[Logic]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

These are my thoughts as well. Thus, I am willing to hack my 2012 Tesla Model S . . . or not. Teslas are cheaply found because of Elon's antics. I have an air-cooled aero engine that was slated for a drone before the grant got dumped. I see a few grant offerings for range extension technologies . . .

Grants?!!!
Lets do this thing!?
I need to getTF out of South Africa anyway! (now becoming life threatening)

I would say that that a water cooled engine may be a better option?:

• If you can use the waste heat the efficiency of an engine goes WAY up! (to over 80% for exhaust heat recuperation) See Combined Heat and Power: CHP.
• In cold weather/areas integrating the cooling system into the battery heating/cooling system makes sense while the genset gives you back some of the lost (to cold) amps.
• Plus there's the std ICE car interior heating.
• Water cooled engines give you better engine (combustion) temperature control and options for low drag cooling. (Meredith Effect)
• Quieter
• More compact.

[Logic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMcFQqhbpM

See from around 16min 40 seconds and especially at 16m50s.

Things I NB'd:
The LARGE unburned fuel droplets from that carb!
Even after combustion!
I assume those large droplets are due to fuel mist collecting on the intake duct etc walls of this 'only run it cold' engine?

The 'fire' leaving via the exhaust port about 135 degrees into the power stroke.
That normally cant be helped if you want power and efficiency out of a higher revving vehicle engine.
But with vapour etc the burn should be done before the valve opens..?
I'd love to see this engine on vapour or gas, without/with some H2!

At ~16m50s one sees a STRONG blast of 'air' between the 1st and 2nd ring, heading from/toward the ring gaps?
Also between the 2nd and 3rd ring.
I have some ideas to minimize that!

Then there's a small burn between the 1st and 2nd ring!!!
I assume that is because the rings are plastic, the acrylic sleeve too big for the piston
and because there is way less heat dissipation/quench from that acrylic sleeve..??


I NB that light is produced when an electron moves to a lower orbital.
So what we are seeing is slightly 'after burn' when things are cooling down already.
ie: We aren't seeing THE burn.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Logic

I would say that that a water cooled engine may be a better option?

Being a Brazilian, obviously I love the Volkswagen Beetle and its air-cooled engine, however it's undeniable a water-cooled one has advantages.