Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2017, 04:37 AM   #311 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,576

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
90 day: 158.37 mpg (US)
Thanks: 69
Thanked 652 Times in 413 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Let me re-emphasize:

Show me one Tom, Dick, or Harry who has proven the increased efficiency from a system like this.

I didn't ask for hundreds who had ran an engine on vapour, I asked for one who had proven it! (To be more efficient)

__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-09-2017, 08:09 AM   #312 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 716
Thanks: 4
Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakobnev View Post
Let me re-emphasize:

Show me one Tom, Dick, or Harry who has proven the increased efficiency from a system like this.

I didn't ask for hundreds who had ran an engine on vapour, I asked for one who had proven it! (To be more efficient)
IF anyone of these looked real I would not be here...

And if anyone looked like it could be used under the hood I would not be here asking for help!!!

BUT it seems all of these demos do show these motors running on pure vapor.

200+ times!!!

That alone shows it is possible.

The problem is to make a functional system.

Rich

Last edited by racprops; 02-09-2017 at 12:25 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 11:36 AM   #313 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
teoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 1,242

A3 - '12 Audi A3
Thanks: 65
Thanked 224 Times in 185 Posts
Will your super heated gasoline vapor ignite the moment it sees oxygen?

If you have a gasoline engine that has injectors maybe you can build some kind of heated barrel with a checkvalve in front of it that goes in between the injector and block.

This way it will be full of vapor all the time and it will inject its contents once the injector fires a new pulse of fuel which immediately vaporizes pushing available vapor out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 12:16 PM   #314 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 716
Thanks: 4
Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by teoman View Post
Will your super heated gasoline vapor ignite the moment it sees oxygen?

YES that is why I call for a AIR TIGHT vapor chamber, and why I plan on a cooling chamber next with a water jacket and to add a small amount of water directly into the hot vapor as it enters or exits the cooling chamber as the first part of cooling MIGHT be too hot for a water injector.

It will take a lot of heat to convert ALL of the stuff in the gasoline, but then once in vapor form, it takes a lot of cooling to condense it back into liquid. I plan on lowering its temp to below the flash point



If you have a gasoline engine that has injectors maybe you can build some kind of heated barrel with a checkvalve in front of it that goes in between the injector and block.

This way it will be full of vapor all the time and it will inject its contents once the injector fires a new pulse of fuel which immediately vaporizes pushing available vapor out.
Your last suggestion is a good one thanks.

One thing said about a full vapor engine is that it runs so cold there will be no heat for a heater/defroster, I am thinking my heat exchanger might solve that problem but running the hot water from cooling the vapor though the cars heater.

Thus killing two birds with one stone.

Rich
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 12:48 PM   #315 (permalink)
Honda Head
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nj
Posts: 20

Rescue Toaster - '90 Honda Civic
90 day: 40.92 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
for what its worth, some of the energy contained in the gasoline is needed to generate heat for combustion... so preheating from another source theroetically saves some energy for the combustion process... thats rocket science stuff lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 01:09 PM   #316 (permalink)
ScanGauge <3
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: CID
Posts: 364
Thanks: 226
Thanked 129 Times in 91 Posts
Dumb questions:

1) Wouldn't gasoline vapor re-condense if you cooled it again?
2) What is it about a vapor-powered engine that would make it run cooler? Is it that the vapor supports a much leaner condition so there's less actual combustion going on? You'd mentioned that toward the beginning of the thread and I've been wondering since.

Thanks.
__________________



Best tank (so far): 32 MPG

Last edited by ThermionicScott; 02-09-2017 at 01:18 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 01:40 PM   #317 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 716
Thanks: 4
Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott View Post
Dumb questions:

1) Wouldn't gasoline vapor re-condense if you cooled it again?

It is funny BUT it takes a lot of hear to completely vaporizer a liquid but once in a vapor form it takes a lot of cold to condense it back into a liquid..so there is some room...

The idea is to bring it down to a safe temp where it is not likely to flash burn, like the vapors that comes off say a cup of gasoline...it does not burn without something to start it.

2) What is it about a vapor-powered engine that would make it run cooler? Is it that the vapor supports a much leaner condition so there's less actual combustion going on? You'd mentioned that toward the beginning of the thread and I've been wondering since.

Thanks.
The story is that IF you use pure vapor and at the right amount it is all burned in the early power cycle and there is no extra to burn as in the normal combustion where there is burning gas all the way to the catalytic convertor which then burns almost all the left over...so there is no burning gases for the rest of the power stroke, nor the exhaust stroke, nor as it leaves though the exhaust valve and as it goes though the exhaust manifold and into the exhaust pipes..

It is said 70% of the wasted heat the cooling system has to handle is from all that wasted burning fuel.

Rich
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 01:46 PM   #318 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 716
Thanks: 4
Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadlesNorseman View Post
for what its worth, some of the energy contained in the gasoline is needed to generate heat for combustion... so preheating from another source theroetically saves some energy for the combustion process... thats rocket science stuff lol
In this case I don't think that is correct, what we need the heat for is to boil the gas all into vapor, vapor is what powers the car...

Even the fine droplets of fuel ONLY what has converted to vapor really burns and powers the car. Problem is in the nanoseconds of burn time only so much is really vaporized in time for the burn power stroke cycle, the rest is slower and burns after the power stroke...

From: http://www.rockettbrand.com/download...20Gasoline.pdf

A gallon of gasoline will usually contain from 115,000 to 125,000 BTUs. Most enthusiasts want the gasoline with the most BTUs, and that can be misleading. The BTU content is of little value if some of the gasoline is still burning when the exhaust valve opens and all of that energy escapes out the exhaust as heat and unburned hydrocarbons.

Most engines that exceed 7,000 RPM can benefit more from a 115,000 BTU per gallon gasoline than a heavier gasoline that may contain 125,000 BTUs per gallon, but does not have time to completely burn in the combustion chamber.

Think about this: One gasoline has 115,000 BTUs and is 95% burned before the exhaust valve opens; the other contains 125,000 BTUs but is only 85% burned before the exhaust valve opens.

Simple math tells us that the first gasoline gave up 109,250 BTUs. The other gave up 106,250 BTUs. Which would you prefer? I would take the 109,250 BTUs from the 115,000 BTU per gallon gasoline.

Does this actually happen? The answer is “Yes”. Although some heat energy does go out the exhaust, some goes to the cooling system, some goes to pumping losses, etc. some of it goes into making horsepower at the
rear wheels. The bottom line is that the greater the percentage of the gasoline that is burned in the combustion chamber, the better off you are since those BTUs contribute to more horsepower.

A slow burning fuel that is still burning when the exhaust valve opens will put a flame out the pipe that can scare the bejesus out of the guy next to you. In roundy-round racing or road course racing this may gain you a position by making the other guy stay at “flame length, but you could get better results by using a gasoline that burns faster, providing a higher level of thermal efficiency and therefore, more horsepower.

It may look spectacular with three feet of flame coming out of your race car pipes that singes the paint on the car next to you, but those flames are energy being released in the exhaust rather than in your combution chamber.

The same thing can happen to a good gasoline if the spark is retarded. Gives high exhaust temperatures also and contributes to overheating the engine.

Last edited by racprops; 02-09-2017 at 01:55 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 01:52 PM   #319 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 716
Thanks: 4
Thanked 52 Times in 45 Posts
Now for those that question how much power is in the gasoline vapor:
When you burn gasoline under ideal conditions, with plenty of oxygen, you get carbon dioxide (from the carbon atoms in gasoline), water (from the hydrogen atoms) and lots of heat. A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours:

If you took a 1,500-watt space heater and left it on full blast for a full 24-hour day, that's about how much heat is in a gallon of gas.
If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!

NOTE they are talking about the total power from fully burning gasoline...it is said our ICEs are only 30% efferent..so it seems we waste 70% some where..some in internal friction, some in pumping loses, but I still think that is only about 20% so there is 50% still wasted in incomplete use of the fuel in
ONLY making power.

Rich

Last edited by racprops; 02-09-2017 at 01:58 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2017, 03:02 PM   #320 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 954
Thanks: 240
Thanked 353 Times in 244 Posts
You are forgetting exhaust heat losses, and . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
Now for those that question how much power is in the gasoline vapor:
When you burn gasoline under ideal conditions, with plenty of oxygen, you get carbon dioxide (from the carbon atoms in gasoline), water (from the hydrogen atoms) and lots of heat. A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours:

If you took a 1,500-watt space heater and left it on full blast for a full 24-hour day, that's about how much heat is in a gallon of gas.
If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!

NOTE they are talking about the total power from fully burning gasoline...it is said our ICEs are only 30% efferent..so it seems we waste 70% some where..some in internal friction, some in pumping loses, but I still think that is only about 20% so there is 50% still wasted in incomplete use of the fuel in
ONLY making power.

Rich
. . . cooling losses and irreversible combustion losses, etc.

If you think you can derive 100% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline and turn it into crankshaft work, you are in for a great disappointment.

If you think you can do better than the Transonic system which DOES result in completely vaporized gasoline or diesel and still is in the 50% range of thermal efficiency, then go for it.

If you still believe 70% of the fuel burns after the exhaust valve then understand, much smarter people than yourself have calculated and measured the burn rate of the fuel. You have not cared to reply to the fact thousands of students of engineering are required to study the very topic you are hoping to improve upon and using university level labs are able to both see and measure the heat produced by burning gasoline in a spark ignition engine. It is a given fact that 98% of a stoichiometric mix of air and fuel will burn before BDC of the power stroke. You have provided no evidence otherwise. Just some anecdotal quotes and videos.

How can one do a simple test of the efficiency of fuel combustion? You already mentioned it in your discussions - the catalytic converter (CC). If the emissions output of the CC is nigh near zero, it can be assumed all loose and unburned hydrocarbons had been turned to CO2. If that is the case, it means that 70% of the fuel had to be oxidized in the CC per your assumption of wasted gasoline combustion. This would melt the CC even at low loads! Or, you could look to see where the fuel is combusted. To be exact, you could simply put a pyrometer right into the exhaust port and measure this "continued combustion". Correct? How about extend that idea and measure the exhaust temperature at the exhaust manifold, the exhaust collector and the CC input and output? If your assumption is correct, the exhaust stream would see a rise in temperature as this excess fuel is burned in the "wasteful" way of modern engines. This of course assumes you are running at lambda=1 for your fuel mix and not the excessively rich mixtures found in racing engines allowing the raw fuel to hit the exhaust tip and ignite.

Why don't you grab a handful of K-thermocouples and tell us what your measurements are?

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com