I want to build a 100-mpg car (and I want it to look vintage)

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by racprops

GOD GOD I hope not, after all such a car would be worthless as a everyday car..."require something very light weight and very aero, with rock-hard skinny tires and a tiny engine with a rather tall top gear that can just barely propel the car along at 60 MPH in top gear."

Heaven help you in any crash, and such tires would not be able to really stop a car not be driven in any weather other pure dry.

I still am a believer in Gasoline Vapor what about that?

Rich

BTU is BTU. There simply isn't enough energy content in gasoline.

Even the VW XL1 only gets something like ~130mpg cruising on diesel at that speed, and diesel has ~15% more energy per gallon. That car was well north of $100,000, has a 40hp two cylinder turbodiesel with every technology available to make it more efficient, weighs in at 1750lbs, uses 115mm width tires, and has semi-tandem seating to cut down on frontal area. The roofline is only 45 inches above the ground at its highest point.

[racprops]

Here are some ideas on Gasoline vapor:

Gasoline Vaporization

by George Wiseman and Geoffrey Tilga

From: Tesla, A Journal Of Modern Science., Available with
membership in International Tesla Society, 2220 East Bijou
Street, POB 5636,Colorado Springs,Colorado 80931 USA
Telephone: 719-475-0918, 1-800-397-0137 (USA),

FAX:719-475-0582. Internet:www.tesla.org
US-$30/yr., $40/family, $55/Corporate,

Others $55. Mastercard, Visa, American Express Cards accepted.


Tesla, Third Quarter,1997 vol VIII, Number3. Pages 8-15 Article:
"Gasoline Vaporization Using A Modified Stock Carburetor"

by George Wiseman and Geoffrey Tilga.


Atmospheric pollution from gasoline motor exhaust is
created by unburned hydrocarbons. These pollutants are
largely caused by the fact that gasoline is not totally
vaporized by the conventional carburetor system. In any
carburetor, gasoline is broken down into droplets or
particles and vapor. It is the vapor that explodes and
powers the internal combustion engine.

The droplets pass through the exhaust system as unburned
or partially burned hydrocarbons, i.e. pollution.
Gasoline can be vaporized more completely by the use of
heat and/or a mechanical action. If the light ends (i.e.,
fractions of gasoline that evaporate below 250 degrees
Fahrenheit) are vaporized, there is a corresponding
decrease in exhaust pollution and an increase in the
efficiency of the engine.

The use of heat and/or mechanical action to improve
the amount of gasoline vaporized was documented in The
Scientific American Digest.1 This finding has been
replicated on modern stationary gasoline engines in the
Houston, Texas laboratories of the Shell Oil Company.2
In the Mills patent, for a device he calls the 'Vapipe',
Mills concludes: "The use of vaporized fuel enables a
gasoline engine to be run on such lean mixtures, even in
excess of 20:1 air to fuel ratio, that the levels of
carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen are simultaneously
low, thereby contributing to the abatement of environmental
pollution."3 Is it coincidental that Shell Oil
Company scientist Geoffrey Harrow of Wales, UK in his
patent "Device For Vaporizing Fuel" makes the identical
claim in exactly the same words?4 For further
reference material on the Mills patent, SAE Paper 760564 is
cited.5


The late Ray Covey, who used the Carburetor Enhancer
Method along with the heat exchanger described here,
was also awarded a patent for a vaporizer carburetor
#4,611,567 using exhaust heat to evaporate gasoline.
This vaporizer patent was originally assigned US Patent
Class 123, Subclass 545 A computer search of all
vaporizer patents in this subclass back to 1900 yielded
over five hundred patents! The reader can access all
patents granted after 1976 at www.uspto.gov on the US
Patent Office database, through the Internet. Go to
'Search Patents' Use Covey's Patent number 4,611,567
proceed to 'References Cited', and explore from there.

After 17 years from its publication in the Official
Gazette, a patent falls into the 'public domain',the
inventor loses all property rights over their idea. There
is no longer any economic or legal incentive to defend
the patent. Contacting the inventors of expired patents
would perhaps be very helpful to readers wanting to
improve the design discussed here. The address of an
inventor can be obtained through the US Patent Office.
Construction plans for the Covey patent will be fully
described in a future issue of Tesla.

[racprops]

A ICE engine is at best 30% efferent, that means at best only 30% of the fuel fed into a engine makes WORK, that at best only 30% of the burning fuel is able t push a piston down.

The rest is either still burning on the exhaust stroke, still burning as it leaves the engine which is a major cause of engine heat.

And some just does not burn at all.

This is what the Cats are used to burn this left over unburned gas and other pollutions.

A major fact is liqueur gasoline does not burn. ONLY Vapor does.

The problem is there is not time for the gasoline in a chamber to fully vaporize.

The theory is if gasoline was converted into 100% vapor a engine will run very well on only 30% pure vapor, not needing the 70% not used be a standard engine.

The theory is such an engine would burn nearly 100% of its fuel and thus product hardly any pollution.

The theory is such an engine would get great MPG using only about 30% of the fuel it used to need.

The theory is such an engine will not need any advance timing as vapor burns very fast.

The theory is such an engine will run at a very low temperature as all the fuel is burned within the chamber.

There has been many climes and demos of such systems.

Rich

[Piotrsko]

Ahhhh,, theory is nice but practice can be a mother.....

My father in law was an advocate, never got it to work on his 440 powered police interceptor. Backfires were impressive.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by racprops

A ICE engine is at best 30% efferent, that means at best only 30% of the fuel fed into a engine makes WORK, that at best only 30% of the burning fuel is able t push a piston down.

The rest is either still burning on the exhaust stroke, still burning as it leaves the engine which is a major cause of engine heat.

And some just does not burn at all.

This is what the Cats are used to burn this left over unburned gas and other pollutions.

A major fact is liqueur gasoline does not burn. ONLY Vapor does.

The problem is there is not time for the gasoline in a chamber to fully vaporize.

The theory is if gasoline was converted into 100% vapor a engine will run very well on only 30% pure vapor, not needing the 70% not used be a standard engine.

The theory is such an engine would burn nearly 100% of its fuel and thus product hardly any pollution.

The theory is such an engine would get great MPG using only about 30% of the fuel it used to need.

The theory is such an engine will not need any advance timing as vapor burns very fast.

The theory is such an engine will run at a very low temperature as all the fuel is burned within the chamber.

There has been many climes and demos of such systems.

Rich

There's a lot of misinformation here, unfortunately. This is simply not the case in modern fuel injected vehicles, and only partly correct even in the least efficient carbureted vehicles.

In a modern vehicle (such as the one I drive) more than 99% of fuel is combusted before the end of the power stroke. The best modern production engines reach about 41% efficient (from Toyota and Honda) and even some of GM's big V8s approach 35% in their peak BSFC island.

Consider this: for an engine to be 100% efficient, it would need to:

1) Have exhaust that was the same temperature as the air going into it. This is simply not possible in a combustion engine. Even the best combined cycle power plants only reach the mid to upper 50's % efficiency, and they cycle heated gasses back through several times to attempt to extract more heat from them.

2) Have cylinder walls and pistons that absorb zero heat from the combustion chamber.

3) Have zero friction.

4) Have zero accessory losses - e.g. free energy to run things like direct injection systems, oil pumps, water pumps.

5) Use zero energy pulling air into the engine, and then zero energy pushing exhaust out.

All of these things add up to give that ~59% energy (best case) not going to propel the vehicle forward which my car sees.

[racprops]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Ahhhh,, theory is nice but practice can be a mother.....

My father in law was an advocate, never got it to work on his 440 powered police interceptor. Backfires were impressive.

I take it has passed?? I would like to learn more of what he was doing.

Rich

[racprops]

Originally Posted by Ecky

There's a lot of misinformation here, unfortunately. This is simply not the case in modern fuel injected vehicles, and only partly correct even in the least efficient carbureted vehicles.

In a modern vehicle (such as the one I drive) more than 99% of fuel is combusted before the end of the power stroke. The best modern production engines reach about 41% efficient (from Toyota and Honda) and even some of GM's big V8s approach 35% in their peak BSFC island.

Consider this: for an engine to be 100% efficient, it would need to:

1) Have exhaust that was the same temperature as the air going into it. This is simply not possible in a combustion engine. Even the best combined cycle power plants only reach the mid to upper 50's % efficiency, and they cycle heated gasses back through several times to attempt to extract more heat from them.

2) Have cylinder walls and pistons that absorb zero heat from the combustion chamber.

3) Have zero friction.

4) Have zero accessory losses - e.g. free energy to run things like direct injection systems, oil pumps, water pumps.

5) Use zero energy pulling air into the engine, and then zero energy pushing exhaust out.

All of these things add up to give that ~59% energy (best case) not going to propel the vehicle forward which my car sees.

Sorry but I have NOT read anything like these statements ANY WHERE, so please can you provide proof of these claims.

They seem even more fantastical than mine...

"In a modern vehicle (such as the one I drive) more than 99% of fuel is combusted before the end of the power stroke. The best modern production engines reach about 41% efficient (from Toyota and Honda) and even some of GM's big V8s approach 35% in their peak BSFC island."

Such engines should be able to get 100+ MPG and would not need a cooling system.


Your notes of a 100% efferent engine I do not have any problem vapor does not claim such, only a reduction to 30% in fuel usage and if it can do the same work it did with the old fuel system with only 30% then a great improvement is MPG would be very possible.

Even then the vapor engine will have hear just not exhaust heat in the thousands of degrees now common, and the cooling system will be lightly used and car heaters might need improvements to give off heat with out 200 degree water.

Your super engine should run off one tenth of fuel in fact off a persons breath...

Rich

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by racprops

Sorry but I have NOT read anything like these statements ANY WHERE, so please can you provide proof of these claims.

They seem even more fantastical than mine...

"In a modern vehicle (such as the one I drive) more than 99% of fuel is combusted before the end of the power stroke. The best modern production engines reach about 41% efficient (from Toyota and Honda) and even some of GM's big V8s approach 35% in their peak BSFC island."

Such engines should be able to get 100+ MPG and would not need a cooling system.


Your notes of a 100% efferent engine I do not have any problem vapor does not claim such, only a reduction to 30% in fuel usage and if it can do the same work it did with the old fuel system with only 30% then a great improvement is MPG would be very possible.

Even then the vapor engine will have hear just not exhaust heat in the thousands of degrees now common, and the cooling system will be lightly used and car heaters might need improvements to give off heat with out 200 degree water.

Your super engine should run off one tenth of fuel in fact off a persons breath...

Rich

Here's a BSFC chart from Honda for my 20 year old car:




There are 3217 grams of gasoline in a gallon, and 116,090 BTUs in a gallon of gasoline (typically).

1kwh = 3412 BTUs.

215g/kwh from the chart means we need 6.68% of a gallon of gasoline to produce 3412 BTUs of usable energy, which is 2.94% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline.

0.0294 gallons of gasoline / 0.0668% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline = 44% thermal efficiency

I'm guessing Honda used slightly different figures for the energy content of gasoline because 44% seems a bit high. Regardless, you can read this paper from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for some more details:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/31085.pdf

They achieved 89.9mpg on the EPA's HWFET test. Personally, I've seen much better than that:





100.1mpg over 104.4 miles on level ground - and the gauge is within 1% accurate of pump figures.

As for waste heat, there's still plenty. Insights have fairly small radiators, but the heat still cranks in these cars in winter. It warms up even in subzero weather. There's no getting around waste heat with internal combustion engines, it's just the nature of the beast.

~

Regarding more modern engines, you can read Toyota's published figures on the engines that go in the Tacoma, Camry and Corolla:

https://global.toyota/en/mobility/tn...0respectively*.

Toyota's new Dynamic Force Engine adopts high-speed combustion technologies and a variable control system. It also achieves greater thermal efficiency, resulting in high output, due to a reduction in energy loss associated with exhaust and cooling systems, the movement of mechanical parts, and other aspects. As a result, the newly developed 2.0-liter gasoline vehicle and hybrid vehicle engines achieve world-leading thermal efficiencies of 40 percent and 41 percent respectively*. In addition, compared to existing engines, the new engines achieve increased torque at all engine speeds―from low to high rotations―and will comply with expected future exhaust regulations in each country in advance.

[Ecky]

Regarding exhaust waste heat, that's a function of the speed of combustion, and the expansion ratio (which is the physical geometry of the engine).

Here's a simplified example:

You add air and fuel to a cylinder, close the valves, compress it, and combust it. Let's assume the full energy of the fuel is released.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...55/2012/931584

Sage Journals estimates combustion gases may approach 3000 kelvin at the point of highest compression, which is a hair under 5000F. This is easily hot enough to ensure any remaining fuel is vaporized and burns. Gasoline does not remain liquid at 5000F.

Assuming we can pull 40% of the useful energy out of the combustion gases, that's still 3000F. If an engine has a compression ratio of 11:1, once you expand that to one eleventh of its original volume, it's still close to 300 degrees. And, unfortunately, these hot gases spend a significant amount of time exposed to the relatively much colder pistons, cylinder walls and cylinder head, where much of the usable heat is lost, conducting through these.

[racprops]

ITS A HYBRID-ELECTRIC

That is a CHEAT, I am talking about a pure Gasoline burning car an Internal Combustion Engine....ICE

And I bet a Tesla can claim even better Mileage...

BUT There is a down side:

The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdo...h=405c7995650b

The making of these cars is horrible... and Driving them can also be bad: Once on the road, the carbon dioxide emissions of EVs depends on the power-generation fuel used to recharge its battery. If it comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will lead to about 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every mile it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gasoline-powered car. Even without reference to the source of electricity used for battery charging, if an EV is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the EV will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

A vapor car especially a older one if switched to pure vapor will be much cleaner that any HYBRID or pure battery power car.

Rich