OBII Smarter than us?

[racprops]

I found some of my old articles:

Some bad news:

The Truth About Vapor Fuel
Like many others, we have heard stories of vapor systems that achieved incredible mileage. We have spent the last seven years, and a great deal of our client’s money, to determine what actual benefit, if any, there is to fuel vapor technology.

We found that fully vaporizing fuel prior to entering the combustion chamber is beneficial in several ways including a more homogenous fuel-air mix and a faster flame speed. Both of those proved to be very important when we were in a lean-burn condition. We were able to safely run a standard V-8 engine on fuel vapor at air to fuel ratios up to 28-1 rather than the standard 14.7-1.

The impact of lean-burn combustion on fuel economy is well documented. Several of the major automakers experimented with lean-burn during the nineties and into this century. There are credible reports of as much as a 50% increase in fuel economy. We were also able to demonstrate the same benefit using a vapor fuel system in a lean-burn mode.

So what happened to that technology? The inability of current catalytic converters (CATS) to remove Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) from the exhaust has prevented its use. It seems the CATS work fine at the normal air to fuel ratio but cannot remove NOx in a lean condition. A great deal of time and money has been spent in the last decade, on a variety of theories, attempting to solve the NOx issue.

Although we, and much of the automotive world, found the best fuel economy is achieved at an air to fuel ratio of about 20-1 the NOx levels decreased to acceptable levels at about 28-1. The fuel vapor system allowed us to run that lean without requiring the complicated and expensive engine modifications of the direct injection systems. The problem everyone seems to have experienced was a significant loss of power during that extreme lean condition. A more efficient combustion was needed if any of the benefit of lean-burn was to be realized.

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) and Autoignition are two of the most touted current technologies that may fit the bill. General Motors and Ford have both announced plans to produce vehicles that will utilize HCCI technology. We agree but this is where we have taken a different approach. It appears the rest of the auto industry has approached HCCI and Autoignition as extensions of the lean-burn effort, but we have not.

The HCCI efforts of others appear to still be based on diluting the amount of fuel used by supplying more air to the charge resulting in a lean fuel to air condition. The greatly improved efficiency of the HCCI combustion allows their technology to work at higher air to fuel ratios where NOx is not as much an issue but not without sacrificing power. Automakers are reporting their HCCI operation will be used at light loads and lower speeds. They are further predicting an improvement in fuel economy of between 15 and 30%.

Vapor Fuel Technologies, LLC (VFT) has a system that utilizes the benefit of HCCI type combustion without creating the NOx problem. Vaporizing the fuel and mixing with heated air prior to entering the combustion chamber accomplish the dilution of the fuel air charge. This process accomplishes the dilution by thermal expansion rather than adding air. The heated air and vaporized fuel simply occupy more space, per pound, within the combustion chamber.

Dilution by thermal expansion allows the VFT System to operate at the standard, 14.7-1, air to fuel ratio allowing the catalytic converter to work correctly. The heating process also creates the conditions for a spark initiated autoignition combustion. As the fuel air charge is compressed it approaches the point of autoignition. When the spark plug ignites, the in-cylinder pressure and temperature rapidly increases. The homogeneous vapor mixture rapidly combusts in a series of autoignition events.

The result of the technology is an independently verified increase of over 30% in fuel economy. An EPA recognized and California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified laboratory ran a series of tests and has verified the fuel economy improvement.

As for the original question about any real improvement due to vaporizing fuel, we have not discovered any 200mpg carburetors but there are proven benefits
__________________

Ok, When Pogue built his vaporized carb, oil companies distilled gas so it consisted of mostly short chain hydrocarbon molecules and was known as well head gas. These light hydrocarbons vaporized easily, lending to the high mileage that he acchieved. Ogle who got 100 mpg also used well head gas.

Shortly after Pogue went public with his carb, the oil companies decided it was necessary to begin refining the gas thru catalytic cracking, plus the addition of lead to the gas( I suspect) led to the failure of vaporized carbs as when the gas vaporized the lead would be left to coat the heat exchanging surfaces of the carb, and effectively insulate them.

Gas now is comprised of over 4000 hydrocarbon chain lengths; each becoming gaseous at a different temperature. There are also additives that vaporize at over 1000 degrees, that like lead did , will coat heat exchanging surfaces, and insulate them over time , rendering the vaporizer ineffective.

There was one class of college students that replicated the Ogle system and it did perform as his did at first. Eventually the system failed and they also found that they couldn't add any new fuel to the system. Upon removal of the gas tank they realized that it was filled with sludge and corrosive heavy end hydrocarbons that had not vaporized while they were driving.

This and the fact that there are more then 26 different blends of gas across the country that would have to be compensated for, explains a good part of why the catalytic converter was made mandatory on every new car produced. Unless one is willing to gamble with a device that produces under the hood temps of 1500 degrees before combustion, there is not much chance of fully vaporizing and cracking the fuel to produce high mileage.

Those that had intial sucess with their cat crackers and got 70-100+mpg have stated that the end resulting gas that was actually burned for power had the consistancy of methane.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by racprops

I would like to ask what you have found with "And, I do have extensive experience and knowledge of HHO and vapor engines. And no, they don't double your fuel mileage. They still must follow the laws of thermodynamics."

I would be happy with 20/30% improvements.

Rich

15 to 30% over a drive cycle (tank-to-tank with the driver unknowing of the devices presence and operation).

I've measured 50% on old carburetor engines, but that is to be expected. And that was at one singular point on the fuel/load map.

The modern gasoline engine is already quite economical. The incremental gains in fuel efficiency are pretty much what one would expect as engine controls improve.

[racprops]

Any results with something as new as my Ford??

And if so with HHO or Vapor?

Rich

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by racprops

I found some of my old articles:

Some bad news:

The Truth About Vapor Fuel
Like many others, we have heard stories of vapor systems that achieved incredible mileage. We have spent the last seven years, and a great deal of our client’s money, to determine what actual benefit, if any, there is to fuel vapor technology.

We found that fully vaporizing fuel prior to entering the combustion chamber is beneficial in several ways including a more homogenous fuel-air mix and a faster flame speed. Both of those proved to be very important when we were in a lean-burn condition. We were able to safely run a standard V-8 engine on fuel vapor at air to fuel ratios up to 28-1 rather than the standard 14.7-1.

The impact of lean-burn combustion on fuel economy is well documented. Several of the major automakers experimented with lean-burn during the nineties and into this century. There are credible reports of as much as a 50% increase in fuel economy. We were also able to demonstrate the same benefit using a vapor fuel system in a lean-burn mode.

So what happened to that technology? The inability of current catalytic converters (CATS) to remove Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) from the exhaust has prevented its use. It seems the CATS work fine at the normal air to fuel ratio but cannot remove NOx in a lean condition. A great deal of time and money has been spent in the last decade, on a variety of theories, attempting to solve the NOx issue.

Although we, and much of the automotive world, found the best fuel economy is achieved at an air to fuel ratio of about 20-1 the NOx levels decreased to acceptable levels at about 28-1. The fuel vapor system allowed us to run that lean without requiring the complicated and expensive engine modifications of the direct injection systems. The problem everyone seems to have experienced was a significant loss of power during that extreme lean condition. A more efficient combustion was needed if any of the benefit of lean-burn was to be realized.

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) and Autoignition are two of the most touted current technologies that may fit the bill. General Motors and Ford have both announced plans to produce vehicles that will utilize HCCI technology. We agree but this is where we have taken a different approach. It appears the rest of the auto industry has approached HCCI and Autoignition as extensions of the lean-burn effort, but we have not.

The HCCI efforts of others appear to still be based on diluting the amount of fuel used by supplying more air to the charge resulting in a lean fuel to air condition. The greatly improved efficiency of the HCCI combustion allows their technology to work at higher air to fuel ratios where NOx is not as much an issue but not without sacrificing power. Automakers are reporting their HCCI operation will be used at light loads and lower speeds. They are further predicting an improvement in fuel economy of between 15 and 30%.

Vapor Fuel Technologies, LLC (VFT) has a system that utilizes the benefit of HCCI type combustion without creating the NOx problem. Vaporizing the fuel and mixing with heated air prior to entering the combustion chamber accomplish the dilution of the fuel air charge. This process accomplishes the dilution by thermal expansion rather than adding air. The heated air and vaporized fuel simply occupy more space, per pound, within the combustion chamber.

Dilution by thermal expansion allows the VFT System to operate at the standard, 14.7-1, air to fuel ratio allowing the catalytic converter to work correctly. The heating process also creates the conditions for a spark initiated autoignition combustion. As the fuel air charge is compressed it approaches the point of autoignition. When the spark plug ignites, the in-cylinder pressure and temperature rapidly increases. The homogeneous vapor mixture rapidly combusts in a series of autoignition events.

The result of the technology is an independently verified increase of over 30% in fuel economy. An EPA recognized and California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified laboratory ran a series of tests and has verified the fuel economy improvement.

As for the original question about any real improvement due to vaporizing fuel, we have not discovered any 200mpg carburetors but there are proven benefits
__________________

Ok, When Pogue built his vaporized carb, oil companies distilled gas so it consisted of mostly short chain hydrocarbon molecules and was known as well head gas. These light hydrocarbons vaporized easily, lending to the high mileage that he acchieved. Ogle who got 100 mpg also used well head gas.

Shortly after Pogue went public with his carb, the oil companies decided it was necessary to begin refining the gas thru catalytic cracking, plus the addition of lead to the gas( I suspect) led to the failure of vaporized carbs as when the gas vaporized the lead would be left to coat the heat exchanging surfaces of the carb, and effectively insulate them.

Gas now is comprised of over 4000 hydrocarbon chain lengths; each becoming gaseous at a different temperature. There are also additives that vaporize at over 1000 degrees, that like lead did , will coat heat exchanging surfaces, and insulate them over time , rendering the vaporizer ineffective.

There was one class of college students that replicated the Ogle system and it did perform as his did at first. Eventually the system failed and they also found that they couldn't add any new fuel to the system. Upon removal of the gas tank they realized that it was filled with sludge and corrosive heavy end hydrocarbons that had not vaporized while they were driving.

This and the fact that there are more then 26 different blends of gas across the country that would have to be compensated for, explains a good part of why the catalytic converter was made mandatory on every new car produced. Unless one is willing to gamble with a device that produces under the hood temps of 1500 degrees before combustion, there is not much chance of fully vaporizing and cracking the fuel to produce high mileage.

Those that had intial sucess with their cat crackers and got 70-100+mpg have stated that the end resulting gas that was actually burned for power had the consistancy of methane.

I am fully aware of FVT and their success. I even use the same lab they test at. I have no reason to doubt their claims.

However, you go on to say that there are problems with fuel additives undermining the ability of vapor systems to work. And yet, FVT makes no mention of this as a problem at all. I haven't found it a problem either.

So, either FVT has no idea what they are doing, or your anecdotal sources are suspect. I tend to think the later.

And the fact you think it takes 1500 degrees (centigrade?) to fully crack long carbon chains shows you don't understand catalysts and chemical thermodynamics. Temperature is just one aspect of chemical enthalpy. Pressure and particle kinetics, as well as the presence of reactive precursors, can rapidly cause thermal de-polymerization of a carbon chain. That is what HCCI and PCCI is all about. Throw in a catalyst such as platinum and you can make the reaction go forward at half the temperature you would expect allowing this to occur before combustion. Does the synthetic gas allow you to cut your BFSC in half? Maybe, if you can take advantage of the H2 present and adjust your engine controls accordingly. Will this allow the average sedan to go 200 miles on one US gallon? No.

From all accounts I have gathered, the car Pogue tested, was stripped down - drivers seat and the heat exchange device were all it carried. He kept his speed to about 40 mph. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like hyper-miling to me! The device may have worked, but not to the extent he and others have attributed.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by racprops

Any results with something as new as my Ford??

And if so with HHO or Vapor?

Rich

I have yet to finalize the control. I will not fool with the ECU. I will simply run a pressure sensor in the number 1 cylinder and hope the rest follow suit. Then a closed system feedback to the hydrogen output.

I expect only some fuel economy gain. Not enough to build a business. I simply want to satisfy my curiosity.

The vehicle should be a 2007 Dodge Caliber R/T with the 2.4L engine and VVT (Variable valve timing) and a CVT (constant velocity Transmision ) trans that does not allow hyper driving techniques. It keeps at 25 mpg even with my maniacal little Wife blasting around at 75 mph. It finally crossed 100k miles and is now out of warranty, so I can hack the thing.

Vapor in and of itself is an empty siren call with little benefits.

I'm out of here - on the road for a bit - in my vegetable oil powered Mercedes.

[racprops]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I am fully aware of FVT and their success. I even use the same lab they test at. I have no reason to doubt their claims.

However, you go on to say that there are problems with fuel additives undermining the ability of vapor systems to work. And yet, FVT makes no mention of this as a problem at all. I haven't found it a problem either.

So, either FVT has no idea what they are doing, or your anecdotal sources are suspect. I tend to think the later.

And the fact you think it takes 1500 degrees (centigrade?) to fully crack long carbon chains shows you don't understand catalysts and chemical thermodynamics. Temperature is just one aspect of chemical enthalpy. Pressure and particle kinetics, as well as the presence of reactive precursors, can rapidly cause thermal de-polymerization of a carbon chain. That is what HCCI and PCCI is all about. Throw in a catalyst such as platinum and you can make the reaction go forward at half the temperature you would expect allowing this to occur before combustion. Does the synthetic gas allow you to cut your BFSC in half? Maybe, if you can take advantage of the H2 present and adjust your engine controls accordingly. Will this allow the average sedan to go 200 miles on one US gallon? No.

From all accounts I have gathered, the car Pogue tested, was stripped down - drivers seat and the heat exchange device were all it carried. He kept his speed to about 40 mph. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like hyper-miling to me! The device may have worked, but not to the extent he and others have attributed.

The addition was not mine, I thought it was by the same writer.

Rich

[racprops]

"From all accounts I have gathered, the car Pogue tested, was stripped down - drivers seat and the heat exchange device were all it carried. He kept his speed to about 40 mph. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like hyper-miling to me! The device may have worked, but not to the extent he and others have attributed."

I was under the impression that Hypermilling was taking the car out of gear and coasting as much as possible.

Still I believe he was able to get a claimed 200 MPG in a older heaver car, even stripped.

Rich

[racprops]

"I'm out of here - on the road for a bit - in my vegetable oil powered Mercedes."

Bio Diesel??

Rich

[racprops]

Oh and another old article:

"Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motorshe, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia. VPI published a papaer. March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved "impossible" mpg. The author said, "I will get back to you.". I am still waiting for his response"


This is not my writing.

Rich

[doviatt]

Originally Posted by racprops

I was under the impression that Hypermilling was taking the car out of gear and coasting as much as possible.
Rich

OMG. This is finally starting to make sense to me. You do not know what hypermiling is. When I stated earlier in this thread that I get over 50 MPG you asked if I hypermile. This confused me (being a hypermiling web site and all). Well according to your impressions and understanding of what hypermiling is...No, I do not hypermile (according to your definition). I get this on a 60 mile round trip commute to work. All I do is drive an efficient car at a reasonable speed 55-60 MPH. I currently have done zero modifications to anything on my car other than pump up the tires. All of my commute is interstate highway. I do coast down from my house about .75 mile but, I drive back up it on the way home.