Gasoline VAPOR?

[racprops]

Temprature:

What I forsee happening by adding gasoline vapor is if the air temperature isn't high enough to keep it vaporized it will condense back into liquid droplets. But if the intake temperature is high, the chances of detonation go up meaning you have to lower your compression ratio and/or retard the timing, both of which will hurt fuel efficiency.


A change of state, from a liquid takes a fair amount of energy, and to condense a vapor takes the removal of a fair amount of energy, in other words to get vapor you need to really heat if up and to turn it back into a liquid you need to do a lot of cooling.


Stuff has a tenancy to stay in the state it is in. My understanding gasoline once vaporized will stay as a vapor for some time unless acted apron by a drastic temperature drop.


And even if you could get it into a gaseous state in cool air, the liquid fuel droplets act as a way to cool the charge to prevent detonation. So again, you'd have to lower the compression ratio or retard the timing or use higher octane fuel. This is why natural gas is a good fuel for this since it's already a gas and it also has an extremely high level of octane.


And again, once in a vapor state there will be NO liquid droplets to cool the mix, and they do that because of their absorbing heat as they are changing state into vapor and it will all BE VAPOR.


Timing will indeed need to cut back, to zero most likely as unlike gasoline droplets which need time to be vaporized BY the early start of combustion, vapor will flash burn producing more pure power to drive the piston and in correctly metered be completely consumed at the end of the combustion cycle and there will be no farther burn, thus much less engine heat. Also as there is no early start of combustion they will not be expanding gassed for the piston to fight as it tries to compress them. This could also add to the power output.


One drawback to gaseous fuels is you get less power. But that can be a good thing for fuel mileage. Since gasses take up more space than liquids, you get less air into the cylinder, and therefore less fuel to maintain a correct AFR. That also means you have to keep your throttle more open, resulting in less pumping losses.


And here you thinking of the other vapor fuels which contain less BTUs that gasoline, all the power gasoline make is from its vapor state, liquid does not burn.


But what could be helpful is extreme atomization. If you could make the fuel as fine of a mist as possible that would help on most all accounts. Maybe gasifying gasoline and feeding it into air that cools it into a fog-like mist would be the key. Or just finding other ways to get it as fine as possible. Ultrasonic vibrations? Of course avoiding things that deatomize fuel are just as important. Making the intake stream bend as little as possible with as few vortices as possible so that fuel doesn't get flung out of the air, for an example.


You’re talking the current state of thinking….finer and finer atomization. ALL to TRY to help those droplets vaporized more…none the less there is still left over fuel otherwise they would remove the cats as they would no longer be needed to clean up the unburned fuel.

Rich

[racprops]

I 100% agree with Ecky.

Well know ICE Professor of Mechanical Engineering John B. Heywood talk about this in several parts of his books.
Quote: "Unburn hydrocarbon levels in the exhaust of a spark-ignition engine under normal operating conditions are typically in the range of 1000 to 3000 ppm C1. This corresponds to between about 1 and 2 1/2 percent of the fuel flow into the engine."

Also, one of our present ICE Gods, Heinz Pitsch talk about this in detail.

The heavier compounds are there for a reason and they are the largest contributor to good FE due to their high energy content.

They would still be there but now converted to a vapor state before intake.


Several test have been done proving that the energy of gasoline is being burnt during the power stroke and can be measure by the coolant temps and exhaust temps.

I see no point here. There is left over gasoline from a standard ICE.


The video that was posted "lawnmower carb guy" this guy is a scam artist!!! Several people have called him out on his YouTube page, and he just deletes the them. His test was only 40 miles. He's just making YouTube $$$ on the idiots that have no clue and want to believe in his magic because the cost of fuel right now.

Oh I totally agree. Total scam as is HHO. Even pure hydrogen cannot make any change is a cars MPG.

I know I can get from 5MPG in a 4.6 Ford by running at 16.4 A/F ratios.

This I did a number of times in a 2000 Mercury Grand Marque which got 28/30MPG at 65MPH at 1700RPMs, and 35MPG at 16.4 A/F ratios, with astock 4.6 V8 with a stock 3.27 rear end.

I also believe in certain cars, vans, and SUVs I can get great MPG from say 25 to 30MPG by using a second overdrive to allow cruising at highway speeds 70/70MPG by allowing the car’s engine to run in it best MPG range which in these cases are 1500RPMs which can be shown but driving such cars at 55/65MPH.

Combining the two could give 30/35MPG Highway only.

City driving would cost more of course.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by racprops

"Port fuel injected engines generally spray fuel early on the back of the hot intake valves before they open, which fully vaporizes the gasoline before it enters the cylinder."


Sorry that is incorrect, this hot intake valve at around 500 degrees helps vaporize some of the fuel, but cannot get it all. In theory it helps with a part vaporize which help start the burn sooner and faster that help vaporize more of the fuel within the chamber.

"Direct injection engines do not, of course, which I think (?) is why they produce soot. However, DI engines typically also get better fuel economy."


I know that does not really compute…all I can guess it they inject less fuel as part of the system.


"Gasoline vapor claims are unicorn material."


YET cars truly can only burn vapor.

Rich

DI engines generally run at the same air fuel ratios, so less fuel isn't being injected.

Something to keep in mind, even if fuel isn't vaporized at all before entering the combustion chamber, as a piston compresses the contents... let's say 10:1. If the intake charge starts at 100F, and is compressed to 1/10 the volume, the temperature inside the combustion chamber will be just under 1,000° F before the spark plug even fires. Once some of the fuel starts burning, the contents of the cylinder can reach 5,000° F.

Without digging any further, I would imagine this would vaporize any gasoline that hasn't already. Anything that failed to burn simply didn't find the oxygen it needed.

I'm all about taller gearing, however. Friction goes down exponentially as RPM decreases. Load goes up, which also helps.

EDIT: Also, a large part of a catalyst's job is to convert CO into CO2, and NOx into N2. Even if there were zero HCs in the exhaust we'd probably still have catalysts.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Ecky

DI engines generally run at the same air fuel ratios, so less fuel isn't being injected.

Something to keep in mind, even if fuel isn't vaporized at all before entering the combustion chamber, as a piston compresses the contents... let's say 10:1. If the intake charge starts at 100F, and is compressed to 1/10 the volume, the temperature inside the combustion chamber will be just under 1,000° F before the spark plug even fires. Once some of the fuel starts burning, the contents of the cylinder can reach 5,000° F.

Without digging any further, I would imagine this would vaporize any gasoline that hasn't already. Anything that failed to burn simply didn't find the oxygen it needed.

I'm all about taller gearing, however. Friction goes down exponentially as RPM decreases. Load goes up, which also helps.

From everything I have read just like what you said, everything has burned even the heavy fractions. Parts like between the piston and cylinder wall in the ring pack area lack oxygen and their will be some unburnt HC but the percent is less then 2% on average. Plus these unburnt crevices areas need this unburnt HC to help with cooling acting like a heat sink.

[racprops]

Well there are these reports: From https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/artic...ur-cars-engine

It has become routine. You get in your car, turn the key, put the transmission in gear, hit the gas and off you go. But, have you ever stopped to think what it takes to make your car run? Powering a vehicle down the road requires thousands of parts all working together. In response to your instructions, they manage a continuous flow of energy as the car accelerates, cruises and brakes – all the while providing optimum efficiency and fuel economy.
(AAA Image)

When discussing car engines, efficiency is measured by how much of the energy in gasoline is actually converted into power that moves the car down the road. Sadly, even with regular car maintenance such as a tune-up or an oil change, today’s gasoline engines are only around 30 to 35 percent efficient, which means roughly 65 cents out of every dollar you spend on gas goes to waste. To address this issue, automakers and their suppliers are investing tremendous resources to increase engine efficiency, meet EPA fuel economy standards and reduce exhaust emissions.

So:

100% fuel energy input>

30% Effective power,(pushed the piston down)

35% Exhaust Heat,(still burning fuel, and left overs for catalytic convertors.)

30% loss to coolant in heat

5% friction and parasitic losses

And from The American Society of Mechanical Engineers https://www.asme.org/topics-resource...mobile-engines

Currently, up to 65% of the heat energy produced in internal combustion engines, whether gasoline or diesel, is wasted. Typically, the powertrain or engine dissipates the heat by convection, where it is carried to the cooling circuit or lost out of the tailpipe in exhaust gases.


So now to my idea, based on the idea and claim that part of the reason for so much waste IS the slow conversion of liquid gasoline to a vapor state within the combustion chamber and how no mater how find a mist is sprayed into it on 30/35% is converted to vapor in time to make power, the rest is burned after the power stroke, then during the exhaust stroke on its way out of the head and still burning going though the exhauset headers and to the first catalytic convertors.

The claim is IF we can convert gasoline 100% to vapor before it is fed into the combustion chamber six things will happen.

One, complete combustion.

Two, only say 30 or less of the fuel will be needed.

Three, engine will run MUCH cooler.

Four, four Exhaust gasses might be much cleaner perhaps below current requirements due to more complete combustion.

Five, Perhaps more power due to not compressing against expanding gasoline already burning during the last 30/40 degrees of crank rotation.

Six, using much less fuel could/should mean much better MPG.

Rich

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by racprops

So now to my idea, based on the idea and claim that part of the reason for so much waste IS the slow conversion of liquid gasoline to a vapor state within the combustion chamber and how no mater how find a mist is sprayed into it on 30/35% is converted to vapor in time to make power, the rest is burned after the power stroke, then during the exhaust stroke on its way out of the head and still burning going though the exhauset headers and to the first catalytic convertors.

The claim is IF we can convert gasoline 100% to vapor before it is fed into the combustion chamber six things will happen.

One, complete combustion.

Two, only say 30 or less of the fuel will be needed.

Three, engine will run MUCH cooler.

Four, four Exhaust gasses might be much cleaner perhaps below current requirements due to more complete combustion.

Five, Perhaps more power due to not compressing against expanding gasoline already burning during the last 30/40 degrees of crank rotation.

Six, using much less fuel could/should mean much better MPG.

Rich

I spoke with my FIL about this a few Thanksgivings ago - he was a mechanical engineer at Ford, and signed off on the Mustang Mach E most recently before his retirement. We talk about cars a lot.

From our discussions, one thing I took away: It's true that getting gasoline to vaporize is an issue, but it's an issue that has already been solved with port injected engines. There isn't any low hanging fruit there anymore.

~

This next bit is my own take, and not from the mouth of a senior engineer from Ford with 35 years' experience working on combustion.

1) Combustion is already basically complete. Some engines burn the charge faster (see Toyota's latest designs), which can improve fuel economy, but basically all modern engines have complete combustion.

2) Engineers are chasing the last 1-3%, not 70%.

3) This one is a bit complex but most of the energy lost from an internal combustion engine is not from fuel burning in the exhaust, but a function of the surface area inside the cylinder, and the amount of time it's exposed to the combustion charge. Inevitably, when you have 3-5000 degree gases inside a metal cylinder, some of that will conduct through the cylinder walls and end up in the cooling system. With a given expansion ratio, you can only extract so much energy (compare to a heat pump), which is part of why we're seeing compression ratios still going up, but once the gases have been expanded, anything left goes out the exhaust.

There is one other way to decrease heat loss, other than to increase compression ratios: Reduce cylinder counts. Larger and fewer cylinders results in a greater volume to surface area ratio, which reduces thermal losses. This is why we're now seeing 3 cylinder engines showing up in supercars.

5/6) Fuel burning later in the crank angle does still contribute to engine power, it isn't working against the engine. However, Mazda seems to have figured out the solution to this one: they have a compression ignition gasoline engine out now.

How it works: It has a very high (diesel level) static compression ratio AND a supercharger, and has sensors inside the combustion chamber. It compresses the gasoline and air mixture and times when it lights it off with a spark plug to intentionally cause the contents of the cylinder to detonate, or "knock". Basically the entire fuel and air charge explodes all at once, rather than burning outward from the spark plug, the same way a diesel engine operates. This allows release of 100% of the energy instantaneously at an optimal crank angle. Mazda is claiming an approximate 20% reduction in fuel consumption over their previous generation engines, which were good, but not class-leading.

Aaaaand that's basically the end of the road for combustion improvements, once you have compression ignition. Anything past that and we'd be looking at harvesting exhaust heat with turbochargers attached to electric generators, or something along those lines. Or, maybe coating the insides of the combustion chamber with ceramics (if they'd survive) to reduce heat soaking through. Or, fractionally reducing friction.

[freebeard]

Are you sure?


This pistonless engine runs on hydrogen and revs to 25k rpm

REVOLUTIONARY new INLINE 4 - ALFADAN BIG BLOCK i4 ENGINE

I like the Scuderi Split-Cycvle Engine, but it seems to have [not succeeded].

[Talos Woten]

Originally Posted by racprops

And the only other classic idea is Gasoline VAPOR.

Claims and reports of 100MPG are all over the place.

Fish Carb, Tom Ogal's system, etc.

I will see if I can do a proof of concept device.

Rich

I trust Project Farm:

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

TL;DW; Gas vapors work, but don't give any better fuel economy.

[pgfpro]

Nice video!!! That should put this to bed lol

I did the same thing on my lawn mower but lost the video when my computer crashed. The results we're the same and even the exhaust pipe temps and head temps. I ran a Innovate WB and kept the A/F ratio the same to see if fuel consumption improves running fuel vapor at the same 13.0 A/F ratio. The results we're the same no difference at all in fuel consumption.

[redneck]

.

As usual people here fail to look outside the box. Unfortunately (sadly), this place has become a echo chamber of what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to pushing the frontier.


In 1973 a small group of engineers entered a 1959 Opel P1 in a mpg contest.

Shell Opel

The contest required a minimum of 30 mph speed.
They achieved 376 miles per gallon in their record run.
They eliminated the radiator and super insulated the engine. A tiny Tillotson lawnmower carburetor with a 3/4” bore was used. It used a direct drive chain from the clutch to a live axle. No suspension. The rear wheels were pushed closely together. It was stripped, chopped and lowered.

In the video of the Maverick with a 302. The guy used a carburetor from a lawnmower engine. It looks almost identical to the carburetor on my 35 hp Briggs V Twin (Daihatsu) zero turn. So, loosely it is capable of producing at a minimum 35 hp. Highway speeds usually require approximately 20 hp or less depending on the vehicle. He is using modern sensors to monitor engine parameters and control AFR at 14.5 to 1. The Opel ran 15 to 1.

While I’m dubious of short fills. His results are entirely possible. However, I would like to know more about his controls. He apparently uses a vacuum bleed to control AFR. At a minimum, he’s using a wide band O2 sensor, a custom controller for vacuum and probably a custom ignition advance also.




Lately, there has been a few new threads coming out pushing the boundaries of accepted knowledge.

I welcome this...

There’s more than one way to skin a cat...

😉

>

.