Vacuum driven gas vapor system

[2000mc]

nice to have the theory in the vapor systems, doesnt sound like something a random guy could add on to his lawn mower though. looks more like we just need to build a ceramic engine to use it on

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 2000mc

nice to have the theory in the vapor systems, doesnt sound like something a random guy could add on to his lawn mower though. looks more like we just need to build a ceramic engine to use it on

These are working examples. One has even done time in an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) lab.

And you sidestep your statement that implies it is theoretically impossible to gain efficiency with a vapor system.

Because of the complexity of the two examples, you assume a homegrown attempt would fail. However, the parameters to successfully implement a vapor system could be stumbled upon by anyone - even through ignorant accident. Having it operate reliably in a wide enough power band to be useful is another question entirely.

[soulcrusher]

Lean burn refers to the burning of fuel with an excess of air in an internal combustion engine. In lean burn engines the air:fuel ratio may be as lean as 65:1 (by mass). The air:fuel ratio needed to stoichiometrically combust petrol, by contrast, is 14.64:1. The excess of air in a lean burn engine combusts more of the fuel and emits fewer hydrocarbons. High air–fuel ratios can also be used to reduce losses caused by other engine power management systems such as throttling losses.

Engines run rich idling. Mix is leaner as throttled, until torque is needed, and a richer mix is needed. A med load needs a lean mix.

Not all engines have perfectly equal air distribution to the chambers, without sensors in each individual piston cyclinder, not all will be exactly running equally since the exhuast is measured from all cyclinders.

With a vapor, any engine would receive the same air fuel mixture regardless of imperfections in fluid flow and turbulence in the intake manifold. Results would be a better balanced engine, which is inherently more efficient.

[2000mc]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

These are working examples. One has even done time in an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) lab.

And you sidestep your statement that implies it is theoretically impossible to gain efficiency with a vapor system.

Because of the complexity of the two examples, you assume a homegrown attempt would fail. However, the parameters to successfully implement a vapor system could be stumbled upon by anyone - even through ignorant accident. Having it operate reliably in a wide enough power band to be useful is another question entirely.

that was basically the point of my post. work a theory vs championing blind ambition.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by soulcrusher

Lean burn refers to the burning of fuel with an excess of air in an internal combustion engine. In lean burn engines the air:fuel ratio may be as lean as 65:1 (by mass). The air:fuel ratio needed to stoichiometrically combust petrol, by contrast, is 14.64:1. The excess of air in a lean burn engine combusts more of the fuel and emits fewer hydrocarbons. High air–fuel ratios can also be used to reduce losses caused by other engine power management systems such as throttling losses.

Engines run rich idling. Mix is leaner as throttled, until torque is needed, and a richer mix is needed. A med load needs a lean mix.

Not all engines have perfectly equal air distribution to the chambers, without sensors in each individual piston cyclinder, not all will be exactly running equally since the exhuast is measured from all cyclinders.

With a vapor, any engine would receive the same air fuel mixture regardless of imperfections in fluid flow and turbulence in the intake manifold. Results would be a better balanced engine, which is inherently more efficient.

My only quibble would be in your description of "rich idle" and "leaner as throttled". Is this an ideal lean burn engine you are describing? Feel free to delve into the meat of things as this is my topic of study and interest.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 2000mc

that was basically the point of my post. work a theory vs championing blind ambition.

. . . you equated vapor engines . . . to a bar of soap in lieu of an O2 sensor.

But, whatever . . .

The impression you gave the reader was that you did not give vapor theory much merit. I misunderstood you if that is not the case.

[2000mc]

Originally Posted by soulcrusher

First test to see if it was feasible to try, my lawn mower. OBVIOUSLY it is not apples to apples. Using a graduated cylinder, I measured exactly 2 ounces of gas and put it into the fuel line. Ran for 23 seconds. Took another 2 ounces, and put it in a bottle. ran a tube just above the gas level and the other end into where the filter attaches. It ran for 2 minutes.

So, before anyone wants to throw THEORY at me, make sure you have actually had some experience or first person witness accounts of someone who has tried. Facts right? Not rumor or gossip?

I don't give sticking a tube in a gas can much merit, soulcrusher didn't sound intrested in "theory" but seemed more intrested in just trying stuff

[2000mc]

Guess I must have misread things before, he got almost 5x the run time out of his lawn mower, guess there isn't any reason to discuss the merits of the most rudimentary vapor system. We have all the evidence anyone could need

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 2000mc

Guess I must have misread things before, he got almost 5x the run time out of his lawn mower, guess there isn't any reason to discuss the merits of the most rudimentary vapor system. We have all the evidence anyone could need

If you have evidence in place to refute him, then present it. So far, it seems the science and engineering viability is there and you have not refuted that in any adequate way.

Why don't you question his methodology of fuel measure? With the small amounts he was using, a small error in volume could turn into a large error in run time.

Why don't you question his reporting? Without adequate description, no one can emulate his tests and come to a conclusion to refute or support.

So many members of this forum speak out of turn and trash new ideas from people who have an honest question. If you are going to be critical, be more thoughtful and specific so that even in opposition there is constructive knowledge to be found.

[soulcrusher]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

My only quibble would be in your description of "rich idle" and "leaner as throttled". Is this an ideal lean burn engine you are describing? Feel free to delve into the meat of things as this is my topic of study and interest.

Throttling without a load I mean.

The ghetto lawnmower was to see if it would run fine. It did so

I did a test with my truck. A very basic run just to see. Air fuel could have been better under demand. In town was just fine. 113.6 miles with 4.78 gallons, 23.75 mpg, 40% above rated mixed driving. ABA or not considering I've put maybe 10 hours labor into this I'd say it's worth my time to keep playing around.