There are a lot of patents for vapor carburetors. An engineer at GM came up with a vapor carb that would give 250 mpg. In a not to unexpected turn of events, the fuel companies responded to this threat to their bottom lines. They have added shellac (for lack of the proper term) that causes vapor carbs to become totally gummed up over time to stop the vapor carb threat... I'm assuming Zeek on Earth does not know this. The idea is extremely good and can be made workable with gasoline that is not "shellaced." Hint: there is none available to us. For all of you who seemed to miss the "one simple trick." The trick is to first vaporize the liquid thus providing a fuel that will burn up completely and not leave unburned hydrocarbons. Everything he is saying is correct. Also, for those of you too smart to listen to the whole lecture on how an engine works, please think of the people who literally do not know and so would not appreciate the simple trick without a basic understanding of 4 cycle engines.. Again, the trick is to eliminate the liquid before it gets in the engine. The attempt at making better and better injection systems is to get finer and finer mists to increase efficiency of gasoline engines. The reasoning behind that is that the finer the mist, the more of it that will turn to a gas and burn before being expelled. Nothing is more efficient than gas vapor: It cools the burn chamber and then burns perfectly. Another way to think about this: You fill your tank with gasoline and then drive down the road and some of your gas (money) is dribbling onto the ground. The more and faster you drive the more money you lose. You are paying to eject some of the gasoline into the environment and not to power your vehicle. That waste stops if the liquid could first be turned into vapor. Then all your money goes to moving the vehicle.
Anybody pushing battery powered cars please remember they have to be charged...using power from??? Coal/nuclear/oil also batteries have environmental costs too. Even solar panels have to be made from rare earth ingredients requiring mining/processing.
vtg100 ambient electricity is almost free! Anyone who’s truly looked at the logic of hydro or diesel produced power will go how can this supply millions of homes, impossible..
ahhh but it IS possible...with sunny fields of glass and extention cords were carn use to grow, and there aint no fields to plow...world will collapse from round up poisnin their cancer cells before ya can count 23 million chinamenwomen..so then all will be energy suspition until the sun runs out of super X 4..
Just a few things you have overlooked. First the carburettor does not pour neat fuel into the engine, it Atomises it. Then the piston raises the pressure and temperature of the air/fuel mixture to about 120psi and 300 deg C, before the spark occurs. At these temperatures any fuel particle will become a gas.
But you also forgot one more important aspect, in your explanation. You forgot to factor in TIME. From a theoretical perspective, your explanation is right. But when you consider the very small amount of time involved, the end result will not be the same. And this is exactly why there is a carbon buildup in normal engines of today. The unburnt fuel, ends up as these carbon deposits. Therefore, when you premix the charge and introduce it as a gas, via the intake valves, no more time is required and ignition can commence immediately and has more time to burn completely and subsequently, increase the overall fuel efficiency.
Well - one thing is for sure. 45 years ago, I found the vapour carbs of the 20's and 30's. They were large and since it was readily combustive, you had a explosive mixture during an accident. Metals were not as strong as they are now. You could burn exhaust valves quick. The one thing I recall is that 4 barrels were good at burning or at least dumping fuel down the intake. The smog stuff, the CAT is only there to make sure that everything out the pipe is charred and no hydro-carbons escape without being reduced with O2. I drove a V8 in the 70's and it got 14 to 30 mpg depending on conditions. Today, a 1/2 ton V8 gets about the same mileage as I did all those years ago. Have we really improved anything, or just muddied the waters and you don't know. It matters not what you or I believe, we are both right. Cheers
I swapped a John Deere 4045T into a 1969 Dodge Coronet I got from a friend who was going to scrap it, since it's interior was trashed, and the engine and transmission was toast. He bought it with the intention to restore it and never did. I got the 4045T from an old generator unit some guy was selling for $700 bucks because the piston had rusted to the cylinder sleeve from being stored for a long time (Potentially with water in it) I replaced the piston and sleeve with new ones and it was then able to run. About a month later I got the Coronet and came up with the idea to swap it after I had bought it. I did some research and found out there are few transmissions out there that are not computer controlled that will mate up to this engine. So I then took the transmission off along with the backhoe differential. The reduction is like 12:1, so I swapped out the stock pinion gears for some custom fab ones I had made for me. Since it has 8 lug rims, I lifted the Coronet up 6 inches to fit some pickup truck tires on a pair of 8 lug rims since all I could find was truck tires. (Truck as in pickup truck). After that I put the engine in on some motor mounts which I made, and they do the job a-ok. I had to put taller, stiffer shocks and spring up front since the last engine weighed 65% of what this one does. Since the turbo was gonna be sticking out of the hood because the exhaust manifold exits up, I cut a hole in the hood, put a sheet metal box (with small vent holes up front) welded to the hood around the turbo housing and cut a hole in the top just big enough for a small 4" hoodstack to fit our the top. I got a custom driveshaft made to link the transmission and differential, which works pretty darn good. The stock main transmission stick lined up perfectly in the original hole but another one had to get drilled out to fit the auxiliary (high/low) range stick. It's made like a 4+2 transmission, so it's an 8 speed technically. I also ran the starter relay, made a injector pump linkage to the stock pedal along with a new brake system for the back and a clutch linkage (although the gears are real close ratio, so I can float gears no problem) All in all it was a really fun and interesting project, but also kind of expensive. The total build cost was $2500 ish, (forgot to mention I found some cheap old bench seats for the interior which I put too. This thing can get nearly 60 mpg going 60 down the highway (I advanced the injection timing a bit) and puts out probably 130 hp with probably somewhere in the ballpark of 300 ft lbs of torque, since I also did a 30% fuel turn up. This thing sounds like a semi if you do a second gear low range take off from a stop! It's also loud and gets a lot of looks when driving through town. (For those wondering, I did put a filter on the intake, it's a nice little racing filter I got for $40 off Amazon, a little expensive but since it's outside theengine bay I wanted to make sure it's getting the right kind of filtration it needs, and still get the right amount of air). Believe it or not this is my daily driver! It's a real beast. Thanks for reading.
I like your idea and have thought about it for years. The trouble is that lean and fully gassed mixtures, although far more efficient, require an engine redesign which would cool down the engine walls faster. Lean mixtures translate to hotter engine walls. So, today's car industry is actually using the rich fuel mixtures to cool the engine from inside. Pour gasoline in your hand and notice how cool it feels. Combustion in these engines are always operating in a gas choking style well controlled. In an old engine design with carburetors, when you adjust to a lean mixture the engine races. So, you are right. But the design of today's engine makes it impossible to run it that lean. The reality is that if all the heat generated by the engine was converted back to work we would get easily 200 - 350 miles per gallon. For that, we need a complement engine like the Stirling engine to charge batteries and subject both engines to that effort. One engine uses gas and generates heat and electricity with a generator. The other one uses heat to charge the batteries and run air conditioning. The gasoline engine is an astonishingly inefficient engine. It uses less than 11% of the power which gasoline can offer. The Carnot cycle is an idealization which shows you the guaranteed loss, which wastes inevitably 32% of the power under ideal conditions due to adiabatics. But that leaves 68% of power to play with. So, 68% - 11% , or 57% loss, tells us that more than half of the power from gasoline is wasted in inefficiencies, most of which is wasted heat. The criminal here is the guy who invented the radiator. It was a shortcut to selling gasoline engines before the research and engineering were completed.
I know nothing about the subject matter, but what you wrote makes total sense, and is very disheartening to see such a waste, an environmentalist not targeting this particular issue. Instead, they want to take away so many of our rights, instead of doing the job correctly. The wrong people are never held accountable, while the everyday person who's trying to survive, is punished, due to the shadiness surrounding us as a people.
We've only be using gasoline vapor heating, torch, and other systems for a hundred years. Modern engines burn well lean of peak. They're kept cool by the volume of air transiting the engines, as well as by the engine coolant. This gentleman's "one simple trick" is bunk.
Cars that do heat fuel are around for a long time and they do use less fuel. The 1,9 litre OPEL OHC engine and early Holden engines had the inlet manifold screwed onto the exhaust manifold. This did heat up the carburetor and the fuel it contained and it leads to a significant fuel reduction. As I am driving such a car since 1973 I speak from experience. But- it comes for a price. This system only works on long distance driving. If you stop the engine the fuel in the carburetor evaporates and you need to crank the engine a lot longer until the swimmer chamber fills up again and the fuel in the previously hot carburetor is lost. I bypassed the cranking problem by installing an electric fuel pump which I only need before I start the engine. The carburetor still creates fuel droplets but in hot weather they evaporate before the fuel-air mixture enters the combustion chamber. In cold weather this does not work as well as the low pressure (often wrongly called vacuum) in the inlet manifold causes the air to cool down. This is why you can get carburetor icing already at + 5 deg C. Also fuel injection into the combustion chamber only creates fine droplets which do not burn as well as vaporized fuel. There is just not enough time for them to vaporize especially in high REVs. This might be different when the (hot) fuel is injected into the inlet manifold. A supercharger heats up the air significantly under pressure and is beneficial in this case while non pressurized hot air contains less oxygen. You can improve combustion significantly by sucking Brown's gas (Hydrogen-oxygen mixture) with the fuel mixture into the engine. It acts as a catalyst and the combustion is much cleaner. I also tried this and it works, the engine also produces more power - if you do this right (see: Joe cell). Just for the record: Climate change is caused by the energy output of the sun and has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is heavier than the gasses of the air and following gravity stays on the ground and not high up to create the glass house effect. A little knowledge of physics and chemistry is sometimes useful. I often wonder what those "experts" studied. I only know it was neither physics nor chemistry. Is there a subject called bullshitry?
Horst, yes, Bullshitry, this is a subject that most politicians excel at. Also, I've read that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, put more pollution into the atmosphere in a few days, than what Man has contributed in a hundred years...
Thank God I went to school before science was so corrupted by grant money, and I have a good memory. Learned in the early seventies that all atmospheric gases have a greenhouse effect, the largest greenhouse gas in volume is nitrogen. The Earth's Moon has virtually no atmosphere, therefore it has no greenhouse effect. At night the moon is as cold as space gets inside the solar system. Carbon dioxide traps heat, but so does every component of Earth's atmosphere. Next time some know it all hits you with the doomsday man caused global warming scenario point this out. Another thing to point out is that Earth's icecaps have come and gone without mankind in any form being here. Maybe the dinosaurs used to much coal. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant then so is oxygen.
Carbon dioxide actually is uniform in its occurrence in our atmosphere, there is the same amount at sea level, as there is at 30,000 ft above sea level, and anywhere/everywhere else and in between. It cannot efficiently trap heat at all. The greenhouse gas that traps heat here, is water vapor, CLOUDS. Besides, CO2 only makes up 0.0385% (less than four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere), it is literally a trace element, there is not enough of it to trap heat...
Congrats teacher! Great idea! One more thing: when you reduce the pollution (particulated material, oxides and others) you reduce together the illness. Regards.
You can think of this in a very simple way. Look at your old coleman fuel camp stove's and lantern's. Pressure pumped by hand makes a vapor you can burn. Regulate the amount of pressure on your gas tank and supply the vapor to the engine. Maybe an on board air compressor with a pressure cycling switch on the tank to supply the right amount of pressure. I believe we are working on the same principles.
As a collector, fixer, & user of Coleman lanterns I understand your point, but it’s not quite complete. The pressure from the hand pump does NOT create vapor, it just pressurizes the fuel. If talking about cars, an electric or mechanical fuel pump will do fine. The magic trick in a Coleman happens in what they call the “generator” tube that conducts the fuel up past the hot burning mantle. In a stove the generator full of fuel passes directly through the flame, and that’s where the vapor is created. Early Coleman lanterns required preheating the generator initially with a torch, later just a match, to get the fuel to vaporize & with decades of experimenting they found a way to wick, swirl, & evaporate enough of the fuel to get enough vapor at room temperature to light the mantels. Once burning, the mantles themselves provide the heat for continued vaporization. Coleman guys know just when to strike a flame to the mantle by listening carefully waiting for the gurgle (liquid fuel) to change to a hiss (gas vapor) when opening the valve. If everything is just right they WOOF then take right off and you have the Sunshine of the Night! Less experienced campers often fiddle around too long and a puddle of liquid fuel builds up. When they strike the match they get a 2 foot fireball instead of glowing mantles.
OK, so mixing the air fuel before it enters the cylinder is an argument in favor of a carburetor. That's exactly what a carburetor does, except it's atomized liquid fuel and your suggestion is that it should already be a gas before entering the cylinder. One could argue that atomized fuel vaporizes pretty quickly so much of it from a carburetor is actually vapor by the time it enter the cylinder. But that doesn't actually work out as well as injectors in practice. So let's examine combustion more closely. There are 2 things happening in combustion that create pressure in the cylinder. One is heat and the other is a change in the total number of molecules due to combustion. Obviously, the more heat generated in combustion, the more the gas would expand if it were not contained. It is contained and therefore pressure increases due to the rise in temperature. This is something we are pretty familiar with and is described in Gay-Lussac's gas law. The other point relates to Avogadro's law, a liter of any gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP) will contain 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. It doesn't matter how big, or how complex the molecules are there will be the same number of them in a given volume at STP. Therefore, whatever gas we draw into a cylinder will have the same number of molecules regardless of what the gas is comprised of. In the case of fuel injection, all of it will be air and then we add fuel in addition to that. However, in the case of the suggested air/fuel mix, some will be air and some fuel, leaving us with less air and less fuel and therefore less power than with fuel injection. So, this would have a similar effect on fuel economy as just having a smaller less powerful engine. If you really want to save fuel, you need to look at the fundamentals of combustion efficiency to extract more power from the process. Assuming a naturally aspirated engine, we are limited by the amount of air drawn into the cylinder but can inject any amount of fuel, The component of air that is consumed in combustion is oxygen (O2) this is a molecule composed of 2 atoms. If the combustion product molecule only has 1 oxygen atom, there will be more molecules so more pressure and power. Petrol is a hydrocarbon and mostly produces CO2, H2O and CO H2O and CO both have only one oxygen. CO2 has 2 oxygen. If we can eliminate CO2 so that there are more single O atoms, we will get more power but we don't really want CO (carbon monoxide) as it is poisonous. In fact modern engines try to minimize this by creating more CO2 which gives us less power. What this shows is the carbon based fuels are not going to be ideal. So, what is ideal? We want to produce a simple 2 atom molecule 1 fuel and 1 oxygen only but we don't want poisonous CO (carbon monoxide) and we don't want CO2 because the engine capacity limits oxygen intake. Of the products we currently have H2O is the closest though we would prefer less fuel molecules consumed. Hydrogen is known to have the highest calorific (heat) value of any fuel and it maximises the number of exhaust molecules for the engines capacity. However, we don't have to use all that extra power and not doing so reduces the amount of fuel burned. The problems are: extracting hydrogen cheaply, liquefying, storing and handling. The danger presented by it being a gas at environmental temperatures and pressures (consider the Hindenburg) and of course, we are using 2 fuel atoms to 1 oxygen which is still not ideal. As above, a simple 2 atom molecule would be the goal but not poisonous ones like CO. So, hopefully all this might indicate some of the real problems with trying to improve fuel efficiency and show that claims might be just too good to be true and have hidden impositions you may not like, such as less power which you can choose to do anyway just by vehicle choice and or slowing down.
I agree this vid draws an incorrect conclusion, but so does your combustion analysis. Every analysis around ignores the fact that the combustion air is 80% nitrogen. The internal combustion engine takes in huge volumes of nitrogen that is at ambient temperature and expels it into the exhaust manifold at very high temperature. A huge amount of energy is lost in making hot nitrogen.
I think we should not be looking for combustion efficiency but rather a different type of fuel or changing the engine system to accept the mentioned mixture in the video, bc as stated in the video, our traditional fuel will eventually run out. I think producing hydrogen on demand and not storing it is the best route. But I think the problem with that is that it can oxidize and ruin the engine if water molecules gets trapped in the engine over time.
Thats bc people are too stiff necked and stubborn to actually admit when they are wrong or in this case fooled. On the other hand, it is the sincere and persisent ones that find the answers they are looking for. The skeptical give in early and never reach the prize. The question is, what do you consider to be the prize? It could be different for every person. What is junk to one man is treasure to another man.
@@chadcervantes6066 I like what you said about the question, "is what do you consider the prize?" The MAGA people should be asking themselves that very question. Make America Great Again for who? So far billionaires and large corporations have benefited greatly but not so much has been happening for the poor and middle class. Continuing dependence on fossil fuels doesn't help the poor and middle class either because, unlike solar, those fuels have to be continually repurchased from the rich that have them.
1. It was first synthesized in a lab using high pressure, hot water and rock taken from deep in the Earth. Crude oil was produced. 2. Oil companies have gone back to wells capped off in the past and found the well full of oil. Again, oil is constantly being formed all the time.
But what you don't understand is the timeline continuum that's happening underneath our shoes. Ice Age proved that Dinosaurs are still alive in a land underneath us that exists millions of millions of years ago, and dinosaurs had to die in order to produce that oil. I mean Manny, Diego and Sid are literally telling us how that oil exists and you need to listen.
@@JDMatthias simple question if dinosaurs produced oil why do oil wells pump from depths further then any known fossil has been found? Oil is drilled much further then fossil records go. Oil isn't going anywhere. Gulf of Mexico has more the middle east. And the middle east has hundreds of trillions more oil. The Wells are reproducing the oil level has risen back up. And Alaska has more oil then the gulf of Mexico. The earth replenishes oil. The russians did the math back in the 50s early 60s with there own wells was billions and billions of gallons more then the wells could extract yearly. They drilled the deepest hole at 8 miles. The bits literally burned up 7 to 8 miles took like a decade. The fossil record going through 10s and 100s of millions of years only goes down around 1 to 2 miles oil is way past fossils were told are gazillions of years old. You can. Even tell new oil from old oil. New oil is that black sludge crap you see on TV which is all over. Old oil is as clean and clear as oil straigbt from a quart. I'm serious oil is big business in my area. Old oil is so pure you could take it straight from the ground jato your engine it's not dirty doesnt need refining like what people call crude. Here's the problem oil is drilled lower then organic material ever reaches. If trees and Dino poop can't get down low enough how are they making the oil. Oik can be made naturally you can take Tissue pressurize it and it makes oil its a science experiment in college thats popular. What's not taught is you can take deep earth rock with hot water and pressurize it and get oil as well.
breaking news, you can always trust the russions to lead in the correct direction of the circle...no doubt in any sane persons' minds that oil is being produced dailie, will never run out, more oil under the north pole that is under the south pole, let that soak in reel good...not to mention oil leases are being rit up as we type in the sue eze cut through...the there is the recent discovery of distilled engine oil in my neighbors drive way...then, if all that doesn't make all feel better, we have more than 20 chances of a dum ass being president for 8 more years some what similar to the last worthless 8..
@@JDMatthias The flood killed the dinosaurs along with man, all except for 8 survivors. Biblically the earth is about 6,000 years old getting ready to enter the Sabbatical Millenial reign of the King of kings. Not trying to argue, just sharing some information you are free to accept.
@@davidmorgan9095 I agree the Russians are smart. I recommend you watch, "Zeitgeist, moving forward" We do have a serious crisis on our hand and people are too asleep to recognize that its coming until its full blown. The government does a good job at suppressing the info from the people and keeping the population calm and dumb. But lets face it, it takes something Greater than the government to fix all the problems we currently have as well as the problems heading for us.
Great idea. One issue is as the air fuel ratio is leaner and hotter, the results of combustion produce NOx. Which is what VW was doing with their diesel engines.
This is a good solution to burn rate, power and efficiency, however it does not seem safe. Like you've already mentioned, gas can only ignite when it has oxygen to react with. If these are already mixed inside a high pressure tube, a premature ignition would be explosive. There are two main variables to consider: Pro: The earlier they are mixed, the more efficient the burn will be. Con: The earlier they are mixed, the higher the chance of a premature explosion will be + the more explosive it will be, as there is more fuel/oxygen to react. This is where you find a balance. With the methods already in use today, the risk of fuel combusting before reaching the engine is almost zero, as the fuel lines are sealed off from oxygen.
That is a good Idea, and I have personally proven that is works. This was many years ago when I was young and naive thinking I can save the world. The only problem with this approach is that by removing the liquid fuel and replacing it with the vapor/gas, you are reducing the cooling affect the liquid fuel has on the combustion chamber, thus over heating components such as piston rings and valves. Essentially the engine would self district in a short time. But the concept can be employed with the proper modification, which could be substantial.
The transitory action from solid to gas is known as a state but in effect it isn't a state it's Termed as sublimination and can be achieved in many ways depending on different factors. Sublimination is the effect of ejecton of breakdown/(transitory leap) from solid matter too gasious state. So the form is the state and the transformation is termed sublimination.
Copper tubing around the radiator hose and insulated worked well for me on a 91 xj years ago.Going to try it again on my yj 4.0. back in 02 I did this on a dodge stealth and we rough figured it was around 62mpg
That is not exactly true. The cathalitic converter reduces overall fuel efficiency and all the safety features make our modern cars more heavy. Despite this these set backs for a fuel economic perspective they have a comparable milage with the old cars. Amazing if you think about it.
This guys video is nothing but a sham. I fell over laughing at the dirty, rusted, junk yard engine that supposedly was the 'proof'. back in the day (mid 90's) I had a 1987 honda civic CRX (hv? model I think). That car had a 4cyl engine, a 5 speed manual tranny, and had >200k miles on it. My avg efficiency was ~45 mpg (mostly city with a small bit of highway). it was light-weight, not fuel injected (it had a carburetor) , and still managed this economy. It was able to do so because of weight savings and simple engineering compared to modern vehicles. It was zippy enough, but certainly not a 'fast' or even really a 'quick' car, but still very fun and economical to drive. I laugh at that whenever I see the proud claims of today's super hybrid cars sporting ~50 mpg in recent years.
I didn't say they were the same, but yes it is absolutely valid to compare the bottom line efficiency. Modern cars have more safety features, therefore weigh more, and have many more computer/sensor driven systems, and they can obtain the efficiency with more 'zip'. My point is that the diminishing returns are staggering.
Vapor carburetors have been around a long time, I actually built one and ran a lawn mower engine on vapor alone and it worked well, the downside I discovered was it basically distilled the fuel down the the non-burnable crap they leave in the gasoline. Vapor carbs do work, but mine was crude and you will need to be able to vaporize ALL the gasoline, including the somewhat non-burnable elements in the fuel.
My father invented something just like this back in the late 70’s. I can remember helping him build and install it. And when it was tested it did work. But when he applied for a patten he was turned down. For what reason I’m not sure. But my old man actually did this same thing. That makes me suspicious. To why his pattern Application was denied.
So instead of dropping the project couldn't he have just started making them and selling them? Just because you don't have a patent doesn't mean you can't do it. If someone else has it patented then he could have simply published his design and results and let the public make and install their own.
To get a patent, very loosely speaking, you need a functional prototype and the idea has to be original. If something very similar was already patented, that would be why.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but vaporizing the gas and mixing with air is what the carburetors used to do. This sure seems like a very complicated way to do the same thing.
The idea is to do it more completely. Carbs still let raw fuel run into the cylinder. Some fuel is vaporized into a gas but some is still just small droplets.
Basically the same difference. The higher pressure inside the float bowl pushes fuel out where the wind shear blows the fuel droplets apart into very small droplets that all begin evaporating at that point in time. Same difference as a low pressure spray.
The gas and oil companies will never let anyone use this gaseous state for more efficient combustion. The number of increased mileage patents is in the thousands and the fossil fuel companies are sitting on literally everyone of them. PERIOD !!!! SO THE ODDS OF THIS HAPPENING IS ZERO PERCENT, PERIOD !!!!!!!!!! P.S. nice video fella with accurate information. A refreshing accurate facts presented Sir.
In the early 80's my used car , got 40 miles a gallon. With the so called '' new improved technology), cars should get at leased 80 miles a gallon now. Am I asking for to much after 30 years.
People got fatter and SUVs are more popular than cars. All gains in efficiency have been lost to bloat. Even cars weigh more nowadays with all those electronics and safety equipment.
@787brx8: I have a 1979 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser (station wagon) with a 350 Chevy engine and a decent carburetor which I've gotten at least 22 MPG in with a failing, slipping transmission, I'm sure once I can get a better transmission, I should be able to get at least 30 MPG. I also have a 1999 Suburban (lighter than my Olds) which struggles to get 15 MPG because it's computerized and fuel injected and has big exhaust restrictors called catalytic convertors, and it's transmission is in fine shape.
Reduce engine knock and advance your ignition timing. That way there is more time to burn the air fuel mixture at each combustion event. My test car already runs full timing advance.
I took six semesters of auto mechanics in the 1950's probably before you were born. Mr. Light, the instructor said the air/gas mixture in the cylinder, when fired by the spark plug does NOT explode, it BURNS. If it explodes you get spark knock. As far as for other uses such as in the kitchen, the Army has had gasoline fired stoves for decades where raw gas is vaporized and burned like natural gas, or propane. Too many other errors and false conclusions. Eh?
How about diesel engines that don't have a spark plug. The fuel explode when compressed. Hit a book of matches with a hammer. Compression explodes matter.
Some one I know (I've decided not to name him) has fitted a Pantone GEET system to a generator engine. He created a base line by running the UN-converted engine under very precise loads. He measured fuel consumption, plug a gas analyse into the exhaust and measured oxygen, CO2, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons. He then converted the engine and run the same set of tests using the same experiment and compared the results. 80% to 90% reduction in pollution 25% to 30% fuel saving. He spent years getting it to work but thanks to the armchair critics he is no longer interested in proving it to anyone. The planet is 1 degree warmer than pre industrial age, 0.7 deg since the second word war. Billions of tones of C02 and Methane gas is waiting to be released from the permafrost in Alaska and Russia. So my friend is living on an island working on advanced food growing systems if you live in a "modern" society buying your food from the super market you will starve before he does.
I got well over 100 MPG with this technique. Technically, I didn't use "this" technique ... I simply measured while going down a very long hill because it was easier.
Aaron Leon: You COULD build and set up a GEET system for you car's engine. They're not too expensive but they have to be built just so in order to increase your fuel mileage and consume less gas. OR... you could look into getting an HHO mod for your car. BOTH are provided in videos here on RUclips if you wanna spend your spare time building it. However, BOTH require your car's computer to be modified and there aren't many shops around the world that can do that because it's still a new concept and the oil companies won;t make big money off of it so it will all die out soon enough. Sad huh?
I'd like to learn more. I don't know much about this stuff, but it sounds like such systems, to gasify fuel, could work on older, pre-computer controlled engines, without need to modify computer controls.
This is correct... too much fuel getting on the cylinder wall is very bad in modern engines as it washes the oil from the lubrication system off. the only time you want to run rich like that to lubricate is if you have a fuel that lubricates which gasoline does not, diesel even does not , the only real modern exception to this is 2 stroke gas engines such as in weedeaters and boats that have oil mixed in the fuel.
Chase, Actually diesel is a light lubricant. In fact so much so that the high pressure injection pumps actually use it for .... you guessed it, lubrication.
Back in the early 1980's we were using a setup similar to this. It was called a "Pogue carburetor". It worked fair. I did not spend a lot of time on it, as it was hard to make it work at all throttle openings on a Pontiac 350ci. motor. I think I still have the paperwork on this somewhere. Haven't thought about this in years.
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
To all the negative comments, legally he can not tell you the trick, but if you have any mechanical ability at all it's all very simple, he told you time and time again, turn the liquid form of gas into a vapour, he just did not use these words , so I'm telling you as I really dont care if they tell me I can't say it, TURN THE LIQUID INTO A VAPOR, then introduce it to your fuel injection rail, or your throttle body injection or your carburetor, it will them be sucked in through the intake stroke and there wont be any pollution from the exhaust stroke
I am a 66 year old age pensioner and I want to buy an electric car. They are so expensive that I can not buy one. Our Australian government gets a 50% tax on every liter of fuel sold. So 1.80 dollar per liter they get 90 cents. They do not want any body owning electric cars and so they put a huge import tariff onto all electric cars imported into Australia. I do not want petrol gas or any thing I want a non polluting electric car. Before people start saying electricity causes pollution by making it, I am going to use solar cells to recharge my electric car battery. It will take longer to recharge but I live in the center of town and I am in no hurry.
7-27-2019 - - - I didn't see in the video where the problem with running "lean" causing overheating of the cylinders was resolved. Did I miss it? So, now with this I can get 70 miles per gallon but need a new engine every 100 miles - or did I miss something?
I might have a cxouple of suggestions that will improve your setup. My brother and his friend made a headgasket with four sets of platinum points equally mounted around the cylinder. It was layered in between the gasket material like a circuit board. So instead of firing from the spark plug it fired from each set of points. The platinum points had no place to hold any carbon build up so would not foul out like a spark plug. and firing the gas mixture with four sets of spark burned the fuel vapor quicker and more completely.(old airplanes had two sparkplugs per cylinder) Giving an increase of power with less fuel consumtion and less emissions. My idea to add to this is to reduce fuel droplet size thus increasing surface area of the fuel by using an ultrasonic mister which instantly vaporizes a drop of liquid to a finer mist than a carburator is capable of. This should also increase power while decreasing consumption andEmmisions. The reason you do not see this gasket method of spark on the market now is a sparkplug company bought their patent. Their was a drawback to the design they had not worked out at the time and that was that the gasket was thicker and you had to torque it down just right or it would blow the gasket. But this was 40 years ago and we have much better materials to work with now. I really hope you read this or anyone else . It could be an easy add on for cars well worth the cost for the increased economy and decrease of emmisions. Hopefully give a little more time for the transition to the totally electric cars that are coming. Jake The Snake Was interested in the gasket for his race cars as it would have been a huge advantage. So if you need an investor you might want to try him. It also goes to show how money trumps humanityand that big corporations (Firestone) are more concerned with the bottom line than reducing polution to save mankind. We really need to institute a crimes against humanity law for people like that and Big Pharma who suppress or overprice discoveries that benefit life.. Please send a comment should you read this. I like to think I am at least trying yo help.
You are right but the one who sent me this link to watch is already doing what the presenter is suggessting. It is very easy and does not require opening of tapet cover or engine etc, just extend n drop a pipe straight in the air cleaner and that is it.
Smokey Unick has a US Patent on Hot vapor flow fuel technology based on the same concept. He built a fire with a vapor flow carb with rotating brushes to vaporize the fuel.
petrol does not burn as a liquid it has to be a vapour for ignition. A carburettor vaporise petrol using the venturi effect an injector vaporises petrol when its sprayed.
The venturi is to speed up the airflow across the jets, that lowers pressure, that draws the liquid in. The fuel is turned to vapor with heat, fuel evaporates faster as heat increases, it's vapor point is very low, well below the freezing point of water. Carburetors have trouble vaporizing the fuel with a cold engine hence the need for hot air pick up pipes, heated manifolds etc and the choke. Carburetors are particularly bad in cold weather and have to supply a very rich mixture to get enough vapor.
I can flick some water out of a faucet at you to cool you off or bounce the iceball I've had in the fridge for 6 months off your skull. You tell me there's no difference...after you get up and wipe your tears.
Note that in a reciprocating engine the pistons and connecting rods must accelerate to high speed and then stop twice per Revolution. This produces a lot of wasted energy. The pistons and rods get hot, and the heat must be dissipated in The radiator. However in a gas turbine the motion is always perpendicular to the force, so no work is done. We should all be driving gas turbines, with pressurized hydrogen as fuel.
The compression stroke heats the air and vaporizes the mist of fuel, no problem, so long as the mist is fine enough. Learn some thermodynamics and this would be obvious. Also at high pressure stuff burns a lot faster.
That's why it takes a moment for the engine to start. Spark = Heat to vaporize the gasoline into a gas. 2 or 3 rotations and enough heat has built up to ignite the GAS. Maybe if I put a heater on my gas tank, no danger there
It makes a lot of sense. This should be researched further by the big automakers... Compressed natural gas is used in some vehicles which has a far less carbon footprint than regular gasoline. The trick is to turn gasoline into an explosive gas (not combustable, but explosive with the oxygen already added) near the engine itself safely. This definitely makes sense if you watch the video carefully.
Vaporize the fuel first with a vacumn chamber...then inject it into the piston chamber..then ignite it.. Much better fuel burn...better power...and a wider timing range....All vapor system ...vapor is all that will ignite fully😊
No the liquid is converted to vapor and as it does it its temperature is dropped 180 degrees Fahrenheit which not ignite until enjected into the engine but a back flow vavle is a goog idea...burns like propane😊
@@patrickgalloway5078 i am not about to convert liquid fuel to gas which is impractical and dangerous if done at home. i'd better buy it in canisters, if available like lpg. 100mpg? theoretical, not in the real world, right?
No its has to be converted just prior to injection to the engine and no it it not goiing to explode or anthing just the opisite it is too cold to ignite in atmospheric pressure and the vacum chamber can only implode due to a minus atmosophere.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY Very interesting what these environmental whack job say for one there is no fuel sort shortage. Number to your average Joe at burns 4 liters of jet fuel per second Keep in mind Allgore In case you forgot was vice president when Hillary was in charge of the country for eight years wasted all this jet fuel flying around the country to tell us how we needed to drive electric cars
Did you mean Al Gore? Or Allgore? Or Allegory? ... "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.:" So in this case, you are correct if you meant "Al Gore" or "Allegory", but if the latter, then you shouldn't have capitalized the A. Hillary was no in charge of the country ... Monica was.
Fossil fuel is comprised of hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon. Our engines burn the hydrogen and spit out the carbon, hence, pollution. If you use resonance (frequency) to separate water into hydroxide, your internal combustion engine will produce over 950 times the energy it took to produce the hydroxide, and you get the water back, to use over and over. Hydroxide is a unique fuel, in exact ratios it implodes, imbalance the ratios, or add ambient air, and it explodes. Thank you for the video. i demonstrated the technology you speak of in this video, to my neighbors some years ago. Everyone oohed and awed, but not one of them did it for themselves. Indoctrination has deep effects.
Of course you are right. Except do you have the knowledge that oil does not come from fossil and any automobile can run on water. How about large jet airliners really run on compressed air. How about we always had free energy. We have been lied to since the beginning.
The ideas are very good. Those who control the economy will not allow it. These people live a privileged life and do not want to defend the environment. Thank you.
FUN FACT: For a bicycle MPG (per gallon of lard eaten) Vs. Fossil Fuel MPG, the MPG for the manual transmission ZE1 Insight is 53-61 mpg. MPG for Lard, a biker gets around 1000 mpg
Right... Put a dinosaur in your tank. Put a sock in your mouth and stop spewing falsehoods. The earth makes it's own oil and not by some dead animal hypothesis millions of years ago.
Even the industry has called it fossil fuel for ages, we've known for decades its formed by algae but you don't hear big oil calling it algae fuel do we?
@@toddolson573 Yep, they've forced that narrative into our throats for the last 150 years. At the rate he was talking about, there would have had to have been dinosaurs standing side by side all over the entire planet but then there's more, they would have needed to be about 200 dinosaurs high. And we'd still run out of fuel....
The first flights of the Wright Flyer were done without any throttle butterflys. Raw gas was in a tray in front of the intakes. The 4 cyl engine made 12 HP.
He is right! People have been killed by the top heads of gas companys. I have a friend that did what he talking about and got about 75 miles to a gal. There is a kit to do it now and think it was State Farm people who helped get this kit patented and put on the market!
So how does the pre-mixer maintain an adequate rate of combustible vapor flowing into the engine at all different engine loads and speeds? And how is an accurate air/fuel mixture maintained at all engine loads and speeds? And how do you prevent the pre-mixer and induction system from exploding if a misfire occurs and sends a flame backwards into the pre-mixer?
This is just a fancy vapor carb. The amount of air coming in determines how much fuel is vaporized. More airflow more vapor less load less vapor. It's load dependant. All vapor carbs are is a water bong. Your intake air tube will go through a small container of gas and bubbles releasing gas vapor. Hit hard you get a better hit. Take it easy it goes easy. Now on your fuel side out that is routed through your intake now not your injectors. Air and fuel all come together premixed. You get those little spark arrestors there likr a dollar it's basically fine screen meshing in the line if it back fires no problem. Your lawn mower probably has one you can take off it. You can build one of these for literally 20. You need a 2 gallon gas can, tubing for the intake and fuel and some gasket maker to seal the tubes that now protrude out your can. Flash arrested spark arrestor same thing different name cheap stick it in good to go.
All this one is, instead of putting the gas can under your hood and pulling the fuel pump fuse. He's made one where the fuel pump will add fuel to that tank slowly as its needed. F 150s get around 100mpg with them. 2 gallon gas tank under the hood is more the plenty
@@JamesSmith-lt5zz Excellent my friend! como lo hicistes ? Es decir cada cuanto tiempo manda gasolina del tanque original a los otros ? Colocastes algun flotante para medir el nivel ?
I was at one of Donald Novaks 200mpg seminars about 1980 and dabbled with a modified air cleaner vaporizer. One of the simplest designs. His solution for the inevitable backfires exploding in the pre-mixer as you say, instead of a short stud & wing nut holding the top of air cleaner on, was a 2” longer stud in the top of carburetor with a spring over it, then the wing nut. When the fireball happens it gets largely snuffed out. Also, keep a fire extinguisher handy!
I always read the comments on a video b4 watching! It has probally saved me hours of worthless crap. The people who are making comments are a lot smarter than the posted content. Thanks!
*Several easy tricks is no 1) Run only Downhill, No 2) Slipstream a Lorry (Truck) No 3) Light 'Gas' Pedal No 4) Get A Diesel and keep Revs low. No 5) Keep Car in Garage and warm up to 90° Before Starting Engine. No 6) Do not exceed 58 MPH. If Obeying all these instructions with overinflated tyres you can get over 100 mpg. I never have but regularly get 74+ MPG (UK Gallon) in my Mercedes B200 CDi AMG Line.*
Raw fuel does NOT burn, a carburetor or fuel injection system does NOT "DUMP" raw fuel directly into an engine. Fuel is precisely metered, finely atomized and introduced into an airstream created by an engines intake system in the form of a vacuum. This very finely atomized fuel and air mixture is mixed and metered as close as possible to a ratio of 14.7:1. An engines combustion process relies heavily on the principals of thermal dynamics. The factors involved that is required to create the proper thermal dynamics to occur for proper combustion is a proper mixture of fuel to air ratio, combustion space volume, intake fuel/air delivery timing, and ignition timing source. If any part of this combination of events is not correct or is disturbed in any manor, the engines power and overall performance is dramatically affected. Once these relatively complex processes and principles are fully understood, only then should an individual be prepared to make changes or alterations to the internal combustion gasoline engine. I have viewed your video and you lacked mentioning of emulsion, atomization, thermal dynamics, fuel properties or what the stoichiometric efficiency is in a gasoline engine. Knowing and understanding the principals required to support the needs of an internal combustion engine leads me to a realization that what we need is an alternative fuel source other than the use of gasoline or an entirely new and different power source, after all our current internal combustion gasoline piston engine design and theory is nearly 200 years old A gentleman by the name of Paul Pantone developed the GEET system that worked very well yet ran into troubles with his invention and left the country. In the early 1780 a process was discovered that produced a fuel source known as water gas. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Water gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is a useful product, but requires careful handling due to its flammability and the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. The water-gas shift reaction can be used to reduce the carbon monoxide while producing additional hydrogen, resulting in water gas. Pure hydrogen can be obtained from water gas by using the water-gas shift reaction, after subsequent removal of the carbon dioxide formed when carbon monoxide reacts with water.
not always , carbs did not atomize the fuel like fuel inj. (that's why the term dump fuel )and todays high pressure common rail or even better direct inj. atomize the fuel much more and it's measured more precisely , just follow behind an old carbureted car and tell if you smell the pollution
If a carburetor did not atomize fuel then I would like someone to explain the principles of an emulsion tube, how and what an emulsion tube\chamber does and why they are so important to the function of a carburetor,,, Additionally, I would like someone to identify where the Pintle valve eedle is located within a fuel injection system. Fuel MUST be atomized to a fine mist and introduced into an air stream (except for diesel engines) prior to entering the combustion chamber for proper combustion to occur. I am a professional ASE certified technician engine builder, tuner and smog testing tech with nearly 40 years experience.
30 years ago Fords said that they were able to get over 80 mpg & the oil companies said, Unless you want $7 a gallon gas, leave it where it's at. Oil companies have a lot of pull, plus there's black ops people out there that'll kill anyone who develops a 100 mpg vehicle. They've done it before.....
Yes, I've seen a report of someone who had an experimental vehicle with a modified fuel system that provided 100 mpg, or something thereabouts. The manufacturer somehow sold it to a customer. The manufacturer got wind of the mistake, sent some agents to retrieve the wayward vehicle by hook or crook, and the vehicle is gone.
@@realjaxon See, I know from watching mainly short films, or segments of longer films/video's that there's been many people who were found murdered/ or just dead but COD listed as Suicide or Natural Causes, like 2 or 3 gunshot wounds to the head, which causes me along with millions of others that in Black Ops world, more than likely tied to big Oil Companies had to play a roll in these deaths. Except for the man down in Mississippi that invented a AA Battery Powered Machine that could power a home with power to spare to sell back to the local power company, back in the early 1980's. At any rate, when he was able to get funding, since the income he lived off of supplied most of the money needed to get his invention Patented, Copyright, which they did do the 1st time but it was revoked about 2 or 3 months later & till his life ended by natural causes, prior to his death, he tore his generator apart, disposed of it & burned all his paperwork. I believe I watched on Amazon Prime. The Movie Titles; ''Newman''. If you have Amazon, watch it because he was on the news, won a Patent, then they pulled it away from him because the ''Physicist from the Patent & Trademark Office weren't qualified to grant him a Patent. Now who would be? The men who knew nothing about inventions, who revoked his Patents? . It was an interesting video. The man who was a reporter from the local news station, quit his job & went to work for Joseph Newman, for over 25 years, which his employment ended when the Newman was so upset with the people who worked for the U.S. Government & told them he was so angry, [in his own words] I'm so mad I'd like to kill you, you mother fucker... That Man was Mad.... If you have Amazon Prime, find it & watch it.
I see a marginal improvement in fuel efficiency with more complete combustion, but there are complexities and limitations in a piston engine of any configuration, whether reciprocating, orbital or planetary. Pre-ignition must be avoided. Each stroke represents a distinct process - induction, compression, power and exhaust. Each process must take place separately in its own limited time interval, because all four processes occur within the same space, but cannot share the same time interval. To gain the best efficiency, the four processes need to be separated by location in the engine, rather than by time interval. Doing that affords each process the opportunity to occur continuously. Ergo the gas turbine promises to be the most efficient internal combustion engine, when designed and built correctly. Surprisingly, the axial flow reaction blading type turbine is not necessarily the best of this class of engine. Instead, a Tesla Turbine system comprising an induction turbine, compression turbine with fuel injection, a power turbine and an exhaust turbine (four turbines, all on the same shaft) is likely to be the best. But the power and exhaust turbines will run at especially high temperatures. They require fabrication from materials of very high thermal tolerance.
This a vaporizing carburetor invented in the early 70s. The company was Fish Carburetors, I believe. Fuel injection for autos was just being pushed by car manufacturers because its very controllable, safe and fixed the piston cooling issues without massive changes to the engine itself. The patent for vaporizing carbs was bought by some big corp, I don't remember who, but Im sure it was either big oil or one of the big 3. The full mileage with vaporizing carbs can easily reach 80 or 90 mile a gal in a chevy v8 like a 327 or 350. The real secret behind this sort of thing is simplicity. If the general populace really understood how easy this is, people would revolt and it could quickly and seriously damage the world economy. The real advances in technology is GRAVMIP, which stands for gravity manipulation. (don't ask me why it's not 'GRAVMAP', that makes too much sense I guess). It's one of the easiest concepts, yet one of the most difficult actions to actually perform. It's also called Canvael Spatial Distortion, but they moved away from that term because its too descriptive.
Going downhill at an idle maybe. Mileage is just not going to be that much better for the same power output. Anyone can cobble an engine that barely runs and claim it gets 100mpg. However it isn't useful that way at all. We need actual power to do the work that we need done.
I've tested the Fish carburetor on a 360 ci. Chrysler engine and it was guaranteed to increase mileage of 20% over the standard carburetor which was a two-barrel or four-barrel factory carburetor. The carburetor did do it and even exceeded the mileage guarantee. Fuel injection will not do that and the the main goal is to present fuel to the engine in a vaporized form for complete combustion/power and low emissions. I would say, the only reason that we are using fuel injection on today's engines is for the convenience of easy starting and use for the average public. Smokey Yunick had the right design and it was not taken seriously by the manufacturers and GOV. Check the U.S. Patents on fuel systems that never went to production because of the corporate greed and GOV control of inventions that never were used which is all about taxes and money. Delve in what gasoline and the number of compounds/vaporzation temperatures it consists of to get to a vaporized state. The product is a poor fuel choice and check on the Fish Carburetor.
Water is used to transfer heat and help mediate the temperature of the heads and block. Keeping the oil cool is of paramount importance though. The oil is the first thing to heat up significantly because it literally creates its own heat when it is cool and viscous. Being forced to shear between tight bearing clearances generates a lot of heat. It generates less heat the warmer it gets due to viscosity changes. Oil has a relatively narrow range where it does its best work. Too cold and the filter bypass opens letting dirty oil through(this happens more than people think). Too hot and the oil breaks down very fast which cuts into its performance. Oil does not transfer heat as well as water but it is in charge of cooling the bottom end. Oil cools the bottom of the piston and it cools all the bearing surfaces. Bearings have to get hot before they can gall. Oil flow at the head and upper cylinder wall is not enough to effectively cool those areas so instead we put water through those areas. The end result is the head can actually help cool the oil though we usually add oil coolers in heavy duty applications just because we want better control over the oil cooling and it is more effective in engine longevity if we can keep the oil from reaching higher temps. In many cases the oil cooler is actually in the radiator. The radiator removes heat from the oil and the water and transfers that heat to the air via the fan. Remember the critical thing is to keep the oil temps low for long life and better engine protection. But not too low because that can cause resistance that generates more heat and if cold enough on a used filter can cause the filter bypass to open. Not something we want to happen.
The biggest concern that I have about the liquid fuel turned into a gas before it reaches the combustion chamber of an engine is that once it becomes a gas it is volatile and you're basically sitting on a bomb how big is a mom depends on how big the gas bubble is and that's why people won't use it! Now if you found a way to do it in smaller increments from liquid to gas just to burn almost a hundred percent of the carbon off of that, then if the explosion is small enough it can actually be self-contained with a safety valve but this would have to be a very intricate system and it would have virtually no room for error or God help anyone who gets in an accident of any kind!
Awesome Presentation !!! I've watched your video before but it was suggested by YT so I watched it again. Thank you for trying to educate our propagandized Brothers and Sisters !!!
What you say is that we should return to the carburetor the purpose of which was just to convert petrol to gas. Carburetor = gasifier. This is not a new idea. it is a step backwards.
he can drive with ur watch time money he is getting from youtube. you go fuck yourself watching non- common sense video like this... i m stupid too....... just like u
It works but has a big problem in that exhaust valves could not stand the heat produced. petrol is part of the cooling system. using propane cools the mix of gas and air and helps cool the valves. petrol gas would damage the exhaust valves. That is why an engine is tuned to use a certain amount of petrol and it is not advised to run lean.
Some have designed gasoline vaporizing intake systems, but they had so many fire issues and under power that the idea of pre-vaporizing is moot. The main issue is the energy required to power an engine with a load it is operating. An engine with only itself to power uses a tiny fraction of the energy one under load uses. One way that does assist fuel consumption is adding a water vapor mist to the intake. I've used such a system for years, yet it is just a fraction better than current intake systems. However, the mist does help reduce emissions.
All these gimmicks have the same issue. You need a fuel air mixture of 14 to one for combustion to take place. Too lean and it just won't fire. So no matter how efficient your delivery system, you can't change the ratio. The second issue is it takes a certain amount of HP to move a vehicle, and that can't be changed no matter how efficient the fuel system. His logic on the fire triangle is wrong. The heat to ignite the fuel and air does not come from the engine. It comes from the spark plug. On a diesel engine the heat comes from the compression cycle. He is also dead wrong that the liquid gas doesn't vaporize until it is ignited. The carb or injectors vaporizes the fuel as it passes thu. It it didn't, you would have a flooded engine.
*Robert Heinkel* The ratio you're referring to is called stoichiometric. Gasoline's stoichiometric level is 14.7:1. Ironically the same number of atmospheric pressure at sea level. This is the ratio that gasoline burns as close to "complete" as it can with the least amount of heat. It doesn't mean it makes the vehicle's engine the most efficient though. It just produces fewer hydrocarbons. 13.7:1 is actually more efficient. Your HP argument doesn't matter in this scenario. My 1971 Camaro weighs right about 3200 lbs. With the 350 I have in it I get about 16mpg doing 65 mph. If I were to replace the engine with a 2.5L 4 cylinder it would use less fuel to produce the same amount of work even if I were to add weight to keep the car at 3200 lbs. It's not like it would jump to 30 mpg but it would use less fuel. Overall you're correct about the ignition cycle. IDK why you mention diesel engines but whatever. And lastly, he is partially correct. The fuel is first atomized by the carburetor or injectors, emulsified by the air it's mixed with and vaporized under compression by the heat created from the compression. Then it's ignited. It's not uncommon to have fuel puddle up on the floor in the plenum of an intake manifold on a carbureted engine before it reaches operating temperature. It's much harder to atomize fuel when the surrounding air is cooler.
That is incorrect Robert Heinkel. liquid gas starts vaporizing the instant it leave the injector and or carburetor. Spill some on your hand and you will see that it can't be avoided in room temperature air.
*consaka1* "Liquid gas" only atomizes when it leaves the injector or when it is drawn through the carburetor and mixed with the air being rushed through the venturi. Vaporization doesn't begin until the heat from the compression stroke heats the air/fuel mixture. What you're referring to when you say "spill some on your hand" is evaporation. Granted that is a form of vaporization but occurs below the 212* F (boiling). The vaporization inside a cylinder happens much faster than normal evaporation.
Evaporation is another form of vaporization. My statement above is absolutely correct. Heat will make it happen faster but it starts happening immediately on exposure to air. 212*F Is not the specific boiling point of gasoline and is really irrelevant to my statement and to the conversion of gasoline to a volital fume or gaseous form.
I’m not convinced that this will work. How will this system actually improve performance? The system would need to adjust air/fuel ratio (Stoichiometric ratio) for different loads, temperatures, atmospheric pressures etc. Thus is already predefined by the ECU and engine management system through the complex network of sensors and predefined maps/programs. This may work well if predefined for idle ratios but the system is far from ideal to handle the variables of average driving.
I believe this to be true. I burn wood for heat in my home. I always thought that wood just burned when it got hot enough until I read an article that explained how heated wood releases gases that burn. My stove has perforated pipes inside across the top that bring in air from outside (below) the stove. Me and my rabbit like to sit and watch fire that seems to shoot out of the holes while flames dance above the logs. Back in the 1970's there were stories circulating about similar concepts/devices. One guy claimed that a nail thrown up by his lawn mower blade pierced the gas tank with a small hole. He said it seemed to never run out of gas after that; his theory was that air entered the small hole and increased the the evaporation rate of the fuel - do you think "running on fumes" is a myth? I'm not a physicist but I've heard there is a calculation for the caloric (as in Energee!) content of an ounce of gasoline. A VERY small amount of gasoline will produce explosions comparable to those produced by TNT. Other people I heard back then used air pumps and an expansion tank of sorts to vaporize the gasoline before introducing it into the manifold. I feel it's only a matter of changing liquid gasoline to a vapor, safely, and mixing it with the appropriate amount of oxygen before or as it enters the cylinder. I kind of think that a small percentage of water vapor could also be introduced with it to increase the pressures produced - quite inexpensively. There are a lot of combustion engines on earth. We are burning our planet's blood and fouling the air.
Real title: "Simple trick to get you to waste 16 minutes of your life watching yet another video where there is no connection between title and content. " Included bonus: Hundreds of comments from viewers who are so personally damaged and scarred for life, incensed, insulted, and irresistably compelled to point out and correct, what they percieve as a misuse of the term 'fossil fuel' that they are completely distracted from the discussion of anything else.
Here is one from a guy you may never heard of....Tom Ogle. He created this Fuel Vapor System in the 1970's .... and patented it. The oil companies bought his patent, not to make them, but to keep them from being made. Tom Ogle was killed later under suspicious circumstances ! .....The patent protection has long since expired so anyone can make the system and sell it today! ..... but they might die for doing it. The oil companies don't want it produced! .... Here is the patent for it. (notice on the left it says in RED ...FULL DOCUMENT) ... click it for the full documentation. .....Tom Ogle would have loved to see it used by everyone! ... pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=04177779&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D4,177,779.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F4,177,779%2526RS%3DPN%2F4,177,779&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page
Yes my friend and it was my pleasure! ..... Tom Ogle wasn't out to make ton's of money he was trying to be helpful and that is why I pass his patent on to everyone. How good does it work for you? what kind of gas millage do you get with it?
Erick I have been involved in projects like this one you have. I'd like to talk to you about that. How can we get in touch? Thank you for sharing this video.
Does anyone remember a product that was demonstrate on TV that was just a simple operation to add it to your engine intake fuel line but just before the injector? it would inject air into the pipe in such a way that it would mix it and it would actually make your car do way more miles/gallon of fuel? I have seen this demonstrate in the 80 maybe even the 70's but it could be found nowhere after that add. Maybe it did run with electricity, i'm not sure. One thing is for sure, 'they' took it off the public eye very fast...
this stuff has been around a long time my friend put one on his truck, and then their were special spark plugs to save gas etc. He never got more than 12 mpg
Sylvain Piche I have purchased a HI CLONE device which has no moving parts and only has razor sharp blades with a slight twist. It's meant to give better mixing of fuel and air. Mine sits in the air intake just at the throttle body. No maintenance....but little to no difference in power or economy. Some people will put a suitable device in each manifold to head area....6cyl equals 6 devices etc. While I'm open to suggestions I did see a guy on U tube running a V6 on petrol vapour by connecting the air intake to a crudely fitted plastic jrry can. Cheers from AUS
Liquid gas is what goes into a engine. This is why direct port injection cars have fsiled and manufacturers have now gone with a hybrid still split or direct port injection. Direct port every 30k miles the injectors are completely sludged and gummed up and run horrible. It has no gas splashing on the intake valves to keep them clean. On a regular port fuel injected car around 70 percent of gas is wasted. The gas comes in splashing going all over the intake valves. Gas is a solvent and keeps them cool and clean. Bottom end of Motors run 400 degrees. Now some of the fuel cools and Lubricates the combustion chamber. Now on the exit it kinda splits. We have this horrible emissions bs EGR, unburned fuel cools and cleans the exhaust valve, the rest of the unburned liquid fuel is rerouted back through the intake through the PCV for another pass. The rest goes into the other horrible emissions device the catalytic converter with the goal of being incinerated to make emissions nil. But they restrict and make back pressure hurting gas mileage. They clog and it can be partially clogged killing gas mileage for years and you wouldn't know unless it fully clogged. Removing my cat and removed the EGR with new headers. And gas mileage went up. The restrictive devices make us burn more fuel. But anyways when the fuel injector releases it's mist that splashes over intake valves that's still liquid. It's just like me spraying cars for a living. My paint gun atomizes the paint into a fine mist as its released its still liquid paint it's not a vapor. It doesn't go into vapor then back into liquid, fine mist. If you mist water on your face with a spray bottle that's atomization just droplets of whatever substance Only the vapor burns the rest of the gas is needed to keep the motor from overheating and Lubricsted. Gas has over 100 Chemicals in it. Gas doesn't lubricate like it use to since they removed the sulphur basically if your old enough you'll remember across America people's gas needles stop working when they reduced the sulphur content of gas to nothing. They took the zinc out of motor oil as well.
Hurricane Alley I love that term, "fossil fuels". You know, when large groups of dinosaurs all decided to commit suicide by jumping into the same hole at the same time, lol. Otherwise, they would have decomposed, naturally , on the surface and into nitrogen for the soil, that is, whatever remains were left after the vultures, rats and maggots got of them. OIL IS ABIOTIC AND CREATED FROM THE EARTH!
And everyone that tries to do this and push it suddenly disappears or is locked up. Big oil companies won't let that technology be on the market. Id they did gas prices would be about $20 a gallon. So they would still make their $$$.
It was used all the way through ww2 and they vanished. The nazis were getting 80mpg in v8 Mercedes with vapor carbs. This is just a fancy one that the fuel pump fills the tank Instead of using a gas can under the hood
@@chadcervantes6066 Yea and by saying so and or showing how he may disappear. Most that does this ya never hear from them again. Either silenced by big government or a tragic accident happens. Even a suicide. If ya do it then do it no keep your trap closed. Look up the history on it. Oil companies will not let this be a new standard. Or has will hit $100 a gallon or more. They have to make their $ off oil. Plain and simple!
I believe what Paul Pantone, "GEEK" had to say about gas and the oil industry. They will not allow us to have cars and trucks that get 100 mpg. They will lose to much money. Back in 50's my dad worked as a mechanic. He told me in the 70's they had carbs that would get 75 to 100 mpg carbs way back then. But gas was so cheap no one cared. Pantone said pretty much the same thing. We have the technology to do so many great things but those in power keep us from using it.
There are a lot of patents for vapor carburetors. An engineer at GM came up with a vapor carb that would give 250 mpg. In a not to unexpected turn of events, the fuel companies responded to this threat to their bottom lines. They have added shellac (for lack of the proper term) that causes vapor carbs to become totally gummed up over time to stop the vapor carb threat... I'm assuming Zeek on Earth does not know this. The idea is extremely good and can be made workable with gasoline that is not "shellaced." Hint: there is none available to us.
For all of you who seemed to miss the "one simple trick." The trick is to first vaporize the liquid thus providing a fuel that will burn up completely and not leave unburned hydrocarbons. Everything he is saying is correct. Also, for those of you too smart to listen to the whole lecture on how an engine works, please think of the people who literally do not know and so would not appreciate the simple trick without a basic understanding of 4 cycle engines.. Again, the trick is to eliminate the liquid before it gets in the engine. The attempt at making better and better injection systems is to get finer and finer mists to increase efficiency of gasoline engines. The reasoning behind that is that the finer the mist, the more of it that will turn to a gas and burn before being expelled. Nothing is more efficient than gas vapor: It cools the burn chamber and then burns perfectly.
Another way to think about this: You fill your tank with gasoline and then drive down the road and some of your gas (money) is dribbling onto the ground. The more and faster you drive the more money you lose. You are paying to eject some of the gasoline into the environment and not to power your vehicle. That waste stops if the liquid could first be turned into vapor. Then all your money goes to moving the vehicle.
is there a way to periodically clean the shitlac out of the system to negate the nefarious corporations stealing from we the people?
Is this better for the engine then running too lean? I think they added Lead to gasoline in 1922.
@@alphajuliet01al yes, you can clean the shellac by spending all the saved money from fuel economy for some acetone to clean the carb...lol
@@alphajuliet01al just buy distilled gasoline.
So why don't propane or natural gas vehicles get 250 MPG?
Anybody pushing battery powered cars please remember they have to be charged...using power from??? Coal/nuclear/oil also batteries have environmental costs too. Even solar panels have to be made from rare earth ingredients requiring mining/processing.
vtg100 ambient electricity is almost free! Anyone who’s truly looked at the logic of hydro or diesel produced power will go how can this supply millions of homes, impossible..
ahhh but it IS possible...with sunny fields of glass and extention cords were carn use to grow, and there aint no fields to plow...world will collapse from round up poisnin their cancer cells before ya can count 23 million chinamenwomen..so then all will be energy suspition until the sun runs out of super X 4..
Lol they can make 1 million windmills
@@realtan9026hopefully you are not saying this thinking that this is a reasonable solution.
Windmills are highly inefficient, have many problems.
Just a few things you have overlooked. First the carburettor does not pour neat fuel into the engine, it Atomises it. Then the piston raises the pressure and temperature of the air/fuel mixture to about 120psi and 300 deg C, before the spark occurs. At these temperatures any fuel particle will become a gas.
But you also forgot one more important aspect, in your explanation. You forgot to factor in TIME. From a theoretical perspective, your explanation is right. But when you consider the very small amount of time involved, the end result will not be the same. And this is exactly why there is a carbon buildup in normal engines of today. The unburnt fuel, ends up as these carbon deposits. Therefore, when you premix the charge and introduce it as a gas, via the intake valves, no more time is required and ignition can commence immediately and has more time to burn completely and subsequently, increase the overall fuel efficiency.
Carbon Monoxide comes from incomplete combustion. Meaning fuel is not burning properly. And also a mist is not a vapor/gas.
Well - one thing is for sure. 45 years ago, I found the vapour carbs of the 20's and 30's. They were large and since it was readily combustive, you had a explosive mixture during an accident. Metals were not as strong as they are now. You could burn exhaust valves quick. The one thing I recall is that 4 barrels were good at burning or at least dumping fuel down the intake. The smog stuff, the CAT is only there to make sure that everything out the pipe is charred and no hydro-carbons escape without being reduced with O2. I drove a V8 in the 70's and it got 14 to 30 mpg depending on conditions. Today, a 1/2 ton V8 gets about the same mileage as I did all those years ago. Have we really improved anything, or just muddied the waters and you don't know. It matters not what you or I believe, we are both right. Cheers
I swapped a John Deere 4045T into a 1969 Dodge Coronet I got from a friend who was going to scrap it, since it's interior was trashed, and the engine and transmission was toast. He bought it with the intention to restore it and never did.
I got the 4045T from an old generator unit some guy was selling for $700 bucks because the piston had rusted to the cylinder sleeve from being stored for a long time (Potentially with water in it) I replaced the piston and sleeve with new ones and it was then able to run.
About a month later I got the Coronet and came up with the idea to swap it after I had bought it.
I did some research and found out there are few transmissions out there that are not computer controlled that will mate up to this engine. So I then took the transmission off along with the backhoe differential. The reduction is like 12:1, so I swapped out the stock pinion gears for some custom fab ones I had made for me. Since it has 8 lug rims, I lifted the Coronet up 6 inches to fit some pickup truck tires on a pair of 8 lug rims since all I could find was truck tires. (Truck as in pickup truck). After that I put the engine in on some motor mounts which I made, and they do the job a-ok. I had to put taller, stiffer shocks and spring up front since the last engine weighed 65% of what this one does. Since the turbo was gonna be sticking out of the hood because the exhaust manifold exits up, I cut a hole in the hood, put a sheet metal box (with small vent holes up front) welded to the hood around the turbo housing and cut a hole in the top just big enough for a small 4" hoodstack to fit our the top. I got a custom driveshaft made to link the transmission and differential, which works pretty darn good.
The stock main transmission stick lined up perfectly in the original hole but another one had to get drilled out to fit the auxiliary (high/low) range stick. It's made like a 4+2 transmission, so it's an 8 speed technically.
I also ran the starter relay, made a injector pump linkage to the stock pedal along with a new brake system for the back and a clutch linkage (although the gears are real close ratio, so I can float gears no problem)
All in all it was a really fun and interesting project, but also kind of expensive. The total build cost was $2500 ish, (forgot to mention I found some cheap old bench seats for the interior which I put too.
This thing can get nearly 60 mpg going 60 down the highway (I advanced the injection timing a bit) and puts out probably 130 hp with probably somewhere in the ballpark of 300 ft lbs of torque, since I also did a 30% fuel turn up.
This thing sounds like a semi if you do a second gear low range take off from a stop! It's also loud and gets a lot of looks when driving through town.
(For those wondering, I did put a filter on the intake, it's a nice little racing filter I got for $40 off Amazon, a little expensive but since it's outside theengine bay I wanted to make sure it's getting the right kind of filtration it needs, and still get the right amount of air). Believe it or not this is my daily driver! It's a real beast.
Thanks for reading.
I like your idea and have thought about it for years. The trouble is that lean and fully gassed mixtures, although far more efficient, require an engine redesign which would cool down the engine walls faster. Lean mixtures translate to hotter engine walls. So, today's car industry is actually using the rich fuel mixtures to cool the engine from inside. Pour gasoline in your hand and notice how cool it feels. Combustion in these engines are always operating in a gas choking style well controlled. In an old engine design with carburetors, when you adjust to a lean mixture the engine races. So, you are right. But the design of today's engine makes it impossible to run it that lean.
The reality is that if all the heat generated by the engine was converted back to work we would get easily 200 - 350 miles per gallon. For that, we need a complement engine like the Stirling engine to charge batteries and subject both engines to that effort. One engine uses gas and generates heat and electricity with a generator. The other one uses heat to charge the batteries and run air conditioning. The gasoline engine is an astonishingly inefficient engine. It uses less than 11% of the power which gasoline can offer. The Carnot cycle is an idealization which shows you the guaranteed loss, which wastes inevitably 32% of the power under ideal conditions due to adiabatics. But that leaves 68% of power to play with. So, 68% - 11% , or 57% loss, tells us that more than half of the power from gasoline is wasted in inefficiencies, most of which is wasted heat. The criminal here is the guy who invented the radiator. It was a shortcut to selling gasoline engines before the research and engineering were completed.
What if you ad a water injector system, to cool the engine, at higher rpm?
@@keithc8108 works fine!
I know nothing about the subject matter, but what you wrote makes total sense, and is very disheartening to see such a waste, an environmentalist not targeting this particular issue. Instead, they want to take away so many of our rights, instead of doing the job correctly. The wrong people are never held accountable, while the everyday person who's trying to survive, is punished, due to the shadiness surrounding us as a people.
We've only be using gasoline vapor heating, torch, and other systems for a hundred years. Modern engines burn well lean of peak. They're kept cool by the volume of air transiting the engines, as well as by the engine coolant. This gentleman's "one simple trick" is bunk.
Cars that do heat fuel are around for a long time and they do use less fuel. The 1,9 litre OPEL OHC engine and early Holden engines had the inlet manifold screwed onto the exhaust manifold. This did heat up the carburetor and the fuel it contained and it leads to a significant fuel reduction. As I am driving such a car since 1973 I speak from experience. But- it comes for a price. This system only works on long distance driving. If you stop the engine the fuel in the carburetor evaporates and you need to crank the engine a lot longer until the swimmer chamber fills up again and the fuel in the previously hot carburetor is lost. I bypassed the cranking problem by installing an electric fuel pump which I only need before I start the engine. The carburetor still creates fuel droplets but in hot weather they evaporate before the fuel-air mixture enters the combustion chamber. In cold weather this does not work as well as the low pressure (often wrongly called vacuum) in the inlet manifold causes the air to cool down. This is why you can get carburetor icing already at + 5 deg C. Also fuel injection into the combustion chamber only creates fine droplets which do not burn as well as vaporized fuel. There is just not enough time for them to vaporize especially in high REVs. This might be different when the (hot) fuel is injected into the inlet manifold. A supercharger heats up the air significantly under pressure and is beneficial in this case while non pressurized hot air contains less oxygen. You can improve combustion significantly by sucking Brown's gas (Hydrogen-oxygen mixture) with the fuel mixture into the engine. It acts as a catalyst and the combustion is much cleaner. I also tried this and it works, the engine also produces more power - if you do this right (see: Joe cell). Just for the record: Climate change is caused by the energy output of the sun and has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is heavier than the gasses of the air and following gravity stays on the ground and not high up to create the glass house effect. A little knowledge of physics and chemistry is sometimes useful. I often wonder what those "experts" studied. I only know it was neither physics nor chemistry. Is there a subject called bullshitry?
Horst, yes, Bullshitry, this is a subject that most politicians excel at. Also, I've read that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, put more pollution into the atmosphere in a few days, than what Man has contributed in a hundred years...
I like what you said if you still have the car and more info make a video! Just so we can learn from you.
great explanation, but doesnt hot gasoline vapor also mean super lean burning, which increases engine temperature and early destruction
Thank God I went to school before science was so corrupted by grant money, and I have a good memory. Learned in the early seventies that all atmospheric gases have a greenhouse effect, the largest greenhouse gas in volume is nitrogen. The Earth's Moon has virtually no atmosphere, therefore it has no greenhouse effect. At night the moon is as cold as space gets inside the solar system. Carbon dioxide traps heat, but so does every component of Earth's atmosphere. Next time some know it all hits you with the doomsday man caused global warming scenario point this out. Another thing to point out is that Earth's icecaps have come and gone without mankind in any form being here. Maybe the dinosaurs used to much coal. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant then so is oxygen.
Carbon dioxide actually is uniform in its occurrence in our atmosphere, there is the same amount at sea level, as there is at 30,000 ft above sea level, and anywhere/everywhere else and in between. It cannot efficiently trap heat at all. The greenhouse gas that traps heat here, is water vapor, CLOUDS. Besides, CO2 only makes up 0.0385% (less than four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere), it is literally a trace element, there is not enough of it to trap heat...
Congrats teacher!
Great idea!
One more thing: when you reduce the pollution (particulated material, oxides and others) you reduce together the illness.
Regards.
Yes, Big Pharma would not like that, now would they?😮
You can think of this in a very simple way. Look at your old coleman fuel camp stove's and lantern's. Pressure pumped by hand makes a vapor you can burn. Regulate the amount of pressure on your gas tank and supply the vapor to the engine. Maybe an on board air compressor with a pressure cycling switch on the tank to supply the right amount of pressure. I believe we are working on the same principles.
As a collector, fixer, & user of Coleman lanterns I understand your point, but it’s not quite complete. The pressure from the hand pump does NOT create vapor, it just pressurizes the fuel. If talking about cars, an electric or mechanical fuel pump will do fine.
The magic trick in a Coleman happens in what they call the “generator” tube that conducts the fuel up past the hot burning mantle. In a stove the generator full of fuel passes directly through the flame, and that’s where the vapor is created. Early Coleman lanterns required preheating the generator initially with a torch, later just a match, to get the fuel to vaporize & with decades of experimenting they found a way to wick, swirl, & evaporate enough of the fuel to get enough vapor at room temperature to light the mantels. Once burning, the mantles themselves provide the heat for continued vaporization. Coleman guys know just when to strike a flame to the mantle by listening carefully waiting for the gurgle (liquid fuel) to change to a hiss (gas vapor) when opening the valve. If everything is just right they WOOF then take right off and you have the Sunshine of the Night! Less experienced campers often fiddle around too long and a puddle of liquid fuel builds up. When they strike the match they get a 2 foot fireball instead of glowing mantles.
OK, so mixing the air fuel before it enters the cylinder is an argument in favor of a carburetor. That's exactly what a carburetor does, except it's atomized liquid fuel and your suggestion is that it should already be a gas before entering the cylinder. One could argue that atomized fuel vaporizes pretty quickly so much of it from a carburetor is actually vapor by the time it enter the cylinder. But that doesn't actually work out as well as injectors in practice. So let's examine combustion more closely.
There are 2 things happening in combustion that create pressure in the cylinder. One is heat and the other is a change in the total number of molecules due to combustion. Obviously, the more heat generated in combustion, the more the gas would expand if it were not contained. It is contained and therefore pressure increases due to the rise in temperature. This is something we are pretty familiar with and is described in Gay-Lussac's gas law.
The other point relates to Avogadro's law, a liter of any gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP) will contain 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. It doesn't matter how big, or how complex the molecules are there will be the same number of them in a given volume at STP. Therefore, whatever gas we draw into a cylinder will have the same number of molecules regardless of what the gas is comprised of. In the case of fuel injection, all of it will be air and then we add fuel in addition to that. However, in the case of the suggested air/fuel mix, some will be air and some fuel, leaving us with less air and less fuel and therefore less power than with fuel injection. So, this would have a similar effect on fuel economy as just having a smaller less powerful engine.
If you really want to save fuel, you need to look at the fundamentals of combustion efficiency to extract more power from the process. Assuming a naturally aspirated engine, we are limited by the amount of air drawn into the cylinder but can inject any amount of fuel, The component of air that is consumed in combustion is oxygen (O2) this is a molecule composed of 2 atoms. If the combustion product molecule only has 1 oxygen atom, there will be more molecules so more pressure and power. Petrol is a hydrocarbon and mostly produces CO2, H2O and CO H2O and CO both have only one oxygen. CO2 has 2 oxygen. If we can eliminate CO2 so that there are more single O atoms, we will get more power but we don't really want CO (carbon monoxide) as it is poisonous. In fact modern engines try to minimize this by creating more CO2 which gives us less power. What this shows is the carbon based fuels are not going to be ideal.
So, what is ideal? We want to produce a simple 2 atom molecule 1 fuel and 1 oxygen only but we don't want poisonous CO (carbon monoxide) and we don't want CO2 because the engine capacity limits oxygen intake. Of the products we currently have H2O is the closest though we would prefer less fuel molecules consumed. Hydrogen is known to have the highest calorific (heat) value of any fuel and it maximises the number of exhaust molecules for the engines capacity. However, we don't have to use all that extra power and not doing so reduces the amount of fuel burned. The problems are: extracting hydrogen cheaply, liquefying, storing and handling. The danger presented by it being a gas at environmental temperatures and pressures (consider the Hindenburg) and of course, we are using 2 fuel atoms to 1 oxygen which is still not ideal. As above, a simple 2 atom molecule would be the goal but not poisonous ones like CO.
So, hopefully all this might indicate some of the real problems with trying to improve fuel efficiency and show that claims might be just too good to be true and have hidden impositions you may not like, such as less power which you can choose to do anyway just by vehicle choice and or slowing down.
I agree this vid draws an incorrect conclusion, but so does your combustion analysis. Every analysis around ignores the fact that the combustion air is 80% nitrogen. The internal combustion engine takes in huge volumes of nitrogen that is at ambient temperature and expels it into the exhaust manifold at very high temperature. A huge amount of energy is lost in making hot nitrogen.
I think we should not be looking for combustion efficiency but rather a different type of fuel or changing the engine system to accept the mentioned mixture in the video, bc as stated in the video, our traditional fuel will eventually run out. I think producing hydrogen on demand and not storing it is the best route. But I think the problem with that is that it can oxidize and ruin the engine if water molecules gets trapped in the engine over time.
@@chadcervantes6066 H2O is a natural by product in current engines, so no change.
*_"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled"_*
~ Mark Twain.
.
you talkin about the snow ball dimykrats?
Thats bc people are too stiff necked and stubborn to actually admit when they are wrong or in this case fooled. On the other hand, it is the sincere and persisent ones that find the answers they are looking for. The skeptical give in early and never reach the prize. The question is, what do you consider to be the prize? It could be different for every person. What is junk to one man is treasure to another man.
@@chadcervantes6066 I like what you said about the question, "is what do you consider the prize?" The MAGA people should be asking themselves that very question. Make America Great Again for who? So far billionaires and large corporations have benefited greatly but not so much has been happening for the poor and middle class. Continuing dependence on fossil fuels doesn't help the poor and middle class either because, unlike solar, those fuels have to be continually repurchased from the rich that have them.
@Zombie ZH himer I got £3000.00 that says he won't
@Zombie ZH himer I'm happy if you want to accept, Sir
You are absolutely right. It's called the vapor carburetor.
ruclips.net/video/Ke0MGmUr3SU/видео.html
1. It was first synthesized in a lab using high pressure, hot water and rock taken from deep in the Earth. Crude oil was produced.
2. Oil companies have gone back to wells capped off in the past and found the well full of oil. Again, oil is constantly being formed all the time.
But what you don't understand is the timeline continuum that's happening underneath our shoes.
Ice Age proved that Dinosaurs are still alive in a land underneath us that exists millions of millions of years ago, and dinosaurs had to die in order to produce that oil.
I mean Manny, Diego and Sid are literally telling us how that oil exists and you need to listen.
@@JDMatthias simple question if dinosaurs produced oil why do oil wells pump from depths further then any known fossil has been found? Oil is drilled much further then fossil records go. Oil isn't going anywhere. Gulf of Mexico has more the middle east. And the middle east has hundreds of trillions more oil. The Wells are reproducing the oil level has risen back up. And Alaska has more oil then the gulf of Mexico. The earth replenishes oil. The russians did the math back in the 50s early 60s with there own wells was billions and billions of gallons more then the wells could extract yearly. They drilled the deepest hole at 8 miles. The bits literally burned up 7 to 8 miles took like a decade. The fossil record going through 10s and 100s of millions of years only goes down around 1 to 2 miles oil is way past fossils were told are gazillions of years old. You can. Even tell new oil from old oil. New oil is that black sludge crap you see on TV which is all over. Old oil is as clean and clear as oil straigbt from a quart. I'm serious oil is big business in my area. Old oil is so pure you could take it straight from the ground jato your engine it's not dirty doesnt need refining like what people call crude. Here's the problem oil is drilled lower then organic material ever reaches. If trees and Dino poop can't get down low enough how are they making the oil. Oik can be made naturally you can take Tissue pressurize it and it makes oil its a science experiment in college thats popular. What's not taught is you can take deep earth rock with hot water and pressurize it and get oil as well.
breaking news, you can always trust the russions to lead in the correct direction of the circle...no doubt in any sane persons' minds that oil is being produced dailie, will never run out, more oil under the north pole that is under the south pole, let that soak in reel good...not to mention oil leases are being rit up as we type in the sue eze cut through...the there is the recent discovery of distilled engine oil in my neighbors drive way...then, if all that doesn't make all feel better, we have more than 20 chances of a dum ass being president for 8 more years some what similar to the last worthless 8..
@@JDMatthias The flood killed the dinosaurs along with man, all except for 8 survivors. Biblically the earth is about 6,000 years old getting ready to enter the Sabbatical Millenial reign of the King of kings. Not trying to argue, just sharing some information you are free to accept.
@@davidmorgan9095 I agree the Russians are smart. I recommend you watch, "Zeitgeist, moving forward" We do have a serious crisis on our hand and people are too asleep to recognize that its coming until its full blown. The government does a good job at suppressing the info from the people and keeping the population calm and dumb. But lets face it, it takes something Greater than the government to fix all the problems we currently have as well as the problems heading for us.
Great idea. One issue is as the air fuel ratio is leaner and hotter, the results of combustion produce NOx. Which is what VW was doing with their diesel engines.
Easiest way to get better fuel economy is buying a siphon hose.
And even cheaper if you just take one from walmart.
this guy is a genius...trying to help us...thank you...
This is a good solution to burn rate, power and efficiency, however it does not seem safe. Like you've already mentioned, gas can only ignite when it has oxygen to react with. If these are already mixed inside a high pressure tube, a premature ignition would be explosive.
There are two main variables to consider: Pro: The earlier they are mixed, the more efficient the burn will be. Con: The earlier they are mixed, the higher the chance of a premature explosion will be + the more explosive it will be, as there is more fuel/oxygen to react. This is where you find a balance.
With the methods already in use today, the risk of fuel combusting before reaching the engine is almost zero, as the fuel lines are sealed off from oxygen.
That is a good Idea, and I have personally proven that is works. This was many years ago when I was young and naive thinking I can save the world. The only problem with this approach is that by removing the liquid fuel and replacing it with the vapor/gas, you are reducing the cooling affect the liquid fuel has on the combustion chamber, thus over heating components such as piston rings and valves. Essentially the engine would self district in a short time. But the concept can be employed with the proper modification, which could be substantial.
Boy! This guy must be rolling in dough with the patent he has on this one simple trick!
I'm still trying to figure out what he is saying, usually exhaust had oxides of nitrogen and co2
So, how do we get this device, and functionally installed in my car?
Any kind of practical / safe way can be easily thought out through plumbing around the exhaust pipe.
The transitory action from solid to gas is known as a state but in effect it isn't a state it's Termed as sublimination and can be achieved in many ways depending on different factors. Sublimination is the effect of ejecton of breakdown/(transitory leap) from solid matter too gasious state.
So the form is the state and the transformation is termed sublimination.
Copper tubing around the radiator hose and insulated worked well for me on a 91 xj years ago.Going to try it again on my yj 4.0. back in 02 I did this on a dodge stealth and we rough figured it was around 62mpg
its amazing that fuel economy for the same size car and roughly same size engine. 30 to 45 years apart still gets about the same fuel economy
That is not exactly true. The cathalitic converter reduces overall fuel efficiency and all the safety features make our modern cars more heavy. Despite this these set backs for a fuel economic perspective they have a comparable milage with the old cars. Amazing if you think about it.
This guys video is nothing but a sham. I fell over laughing at the dirty, rusted, junk yard engine that supposedly was the 'proof'.
back in the day (mid 90's) I had a 1987 honda civic CRX (hv? model I think). That car had a 4cyl engine, a 5 speed manual tranny, and had >200k miles on it. My avg efficiency was ~45 mpg (mostly city with a small bit of highway). it was light-weight, not fuel injected (it had a carburetor) , and still managed this economy. It was able to do so because of weight savings and simple engineering compared to modern vehicles. It was zippy enough, but certainly not a 'fast' or even really a 'quick' car, but still very fun and economical to drive. I laugh at that whenever I see the proud claims of today's super hybrid cars sporting ~50 mpg in recent years.
Dad's 1946 car got 35m/ ga now cars get that and we are told it's a miracle.
I didn't say they were the same, but yes it is absolutely valid to compare the bottom line efficiency. Modern cars have more safety features, therefore weigh more, and have many more computer/sensor driven systems, and they can obtain the efficiency with more 'zip'. My point is that the diminishing returns are staggering.
This guy is so full of it, all his "facts" are incorrect. His conclusions are outlandish.
...OMG!! The world IS NOT going end in 12 years now. ...you made my day!!
Vapor carburetors have been around a long time, I actually built one and ran a lawn mower engine on vapor alone and it worked well, the downside I discovered was it basically distilled the fuel down the the non-burnable crap they leave in the gasoline. Vapor carbs do work, but mine was crude and you will need to be able to vaporize ALL the gasoline, including the somewhat non-burnable elements in the fuel.
My Older Bro. Put A Lawnmower carb on his car in mid 60s. It worked pretty good. But people called him Crazy. Just like several comments by readers.
My father invented something just like this back in the late 70’s. I can remember helping him build and install it. And when it was tested it did work. But when he applied for a patten he was turned down. For what reason I’m not sure. But my old man actually did this same thing. That makes me suspicious. To why his pattern Application was denied.
So instead of dropping the project couldn't he have just started making them and selling them? Just because you don't have a patent doesn't mean you can't do it. If someone else has it patented then he could have simply published his design and results and let the public make and install their own.
@@mboyer68 Yep, Michael, there's always a "catch". No "patten" granted! Ha HA HA HA HA That story reminds me of that fool Tom Ogle!~
To get a patent, very loosely speaking, you need a functional prototype and the idea has to be original. If something very similar was already patented, that would be why.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but vaporizing the gas and mixing with air is what the carburetors used to do. This sure seems like a very complicated way to do the same thing.
The idea is to do it more completely. Carbs still let raw fuel run into the cylinder. Some fuel is vaporized into a gas but some is still just small droplets.
+The End is Near, Prove it.
Haha. Carbs don't spray gas. They use the Venturi effect which causes vaporized gas to enter your cylinder.
Basically the same difference. The higher pressure inside the float bowl pushes fuel out where the wind shear blows the fuel droplets apart into very small droplets that all begin evaporating at that point in time. Same difference as a low pressure spray.
Seems to be a very simple way to me... try manufacturing a carburetor or a fuel injector!!!
The gas and oil companies will never let anyone use this gaseous state for more efficient combustion. The number of increased mileage patents is in the thousands and the fossil fuel companies are sitting on literally everyone of them. PERIOD !!!! SO THE ODDS OF THIS HAPPENING IS ZERO PERCENT, PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!
P.S. nice video fella with accurate information. A refreshing accurate facts presented Sir.
This is a great idea. The process of setting up ones own vehicle is the challenge. Hope you make it as simple as possible.
I missed the "One Simple Trick" part.
"Simple"... That's what I was thinking!
ya where is the trick
The "trick" is in the click-bait title.
Richard Gieser me too I'm thinking click bait
@ Richard Gieser: LMAO ROFL thanx for saving me the time
In the early 80's my used car , got 40 miles a gallon.
With the so called '' new improved technology), cars should get at leased 80 miles a gallon now.
Am I asking for to much after 30 years.
They don't want people knowing what makes their engine run.
Cars now get 24 mpg and people are fine with it.
J & B Homeliving Vega or k car Geo metro all got 40 mpg
Had a 64 1/2 Mustang with a 260 that got 23 mpg. Same as today.
People got fatter and SUVs are more popular than cars. All gains in efficiency have been lost to bloat. Even cars weigh more nowadays with all those electronics and safety equipment.
@787brx8: I have a 1979 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser (station wagon) with a 350 Chevy engine and a decent carburetor which I've gotten at least 22 MPG in with a failing, slipping transmission, I'm sure once I can get a better transmission, I should be able to get at least 30 MPG. I also have a 1999 Suburban (lighter than my Olds) which struggles to get 15 MPG because it's computerized and fuel injected and has big exhaust restrictors called catalytic convertors, and it's transmission is in fine shape.
Reduce engine knock and advance your ignition timing. That way there is more time to burn the air fuel mixture at each combustion event.
My test car already runs full timing advance.
I took six semesters of auto mechanics in the 1950's probably before you were born. Mr. Light, the instructor said the air/gas mixture in the cylinder, when fired by the spark plug does NOT explode, it BURNS. If it explodes you get spark knock. As far as for other uses such as in the kitchen, the Army has had gasoline fired stoves for decades where raw gas is vaporized and burned like natural gas, or propane. Too many other errors and false conclusions. Eh?
Can we use blower inside of fuel tank to get pressurize gasoline vapor ?
He is corrrct!! Gasoline liquid does not burn --- the vapors does !! Also gas burns. It does not explode.
How about diesel engines that don't have a spark plug. The fuel explode when compressed. Hit a book of matches with a hammer. Compression explodes matter.
I'd sure love to install this device on my vehicle if I knew where to get it. Great video anyway, thank you. 👍
Do you have a finished modification on a vehicle you can demonstrate for all of us, and show us the efficiency? or proof of concept?
Aaron Leon .... His cousin did a test and swore he got 100 mpg in his Lesabre. You calling him a liar?
Some one I know (I've decided not to name him) has fitted a Pantone GEET system to a generator engine. He created a base line by running the UN-converted engine under very precise loads. He measured fuel consumption, plug a gas analyse into the exhaust and measured oxygen, CO2, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.
He then converted the engine and run the same set of tests using the same experiment and compared the results.
80% to 90% reduction in pollution 25% to 30% fuel saving.
He spent years getting it to work but thanks to the armchair critics he is no longer interested in proving it to anyone. The planet is 1 degree warmer than pre industrial age, 0.7 deg since the second word war. Billions of tones of C02 and Methane gas is waiting to be released from the permafrost in Alaska and Russia.
So my friend is living on an island working on advanced food growing systems if you live in a "modern" society buying your food from the super market you will starve before he does.
I got well over 100 MPG with this technique. Technically, I didn't use "this" technique ... I simply measured while going down a very long hill because it was easier.
Aaron Leon: You COULD build and set up a GEET system for you car's engine. They're not too expensive but they have to be built just so in order to increase your fuel mileage and consume less gas. OR... you could look into getting an HHO mod for your car. BOTH are provided in videos here on RUclips if you wanna spend your spare time building it. However, BOTH require your car's computer to be modified and there aren't many shops around the world that can do that because it's still a new concept and the oil companies won;t make big money off of it so it will all die out soon enough. Sad huh?
I'd like to learn more. I don't know much about this stuff, but it sounds like such systems, to gasify fuel, could work on older, pre-computer controlled engines, without need to modify computer controls.
The earth hasn't stopped making crude.
wRONG !!!! THE GAS DOES NOT LUBRICATE THE PISTON !!!! tHINK ABOUT LPG !!
This is correct... too much fuel getting on the cylinder wall is very bad in modern engines as it washes the oil from the lubrication system off. the only time you want to run rich like that to lubricate is if you have a fuel that lubricates which gasoline does not, diesel even does not , the only real modern exception to this is 2 stroke gas engines such as in weedeaters and boats that have oil mixed in the fuel.
greenhouse gardenroom gas is a solvent it washes away the oil.rings get lubed up with oil pump in motion..
connecting rods have dipper/slinger or squirt holes that lube your cylinders rings wrist pins
diesel HAS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER LUBRICITY THAN (oops) gasoline.
Chase, Actually diesel is a light lubricant. In fact so much so that the high pressure injection pumps actually use it for .... you guessed it, lubrication.
Back in the early 1980's we were using a setup similar to this. It was called a "Pogue carburetor". It worked fair. I did not spend a lot of time on it, as it was hard to make it work at all throttle openings on a Pontiac 350ci. motor. I think I still have the paperwork on this somewhere. Haven't thought about this in years.
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
To all the negative comments, legally he can not tell you the trick, but if you have any mechanical ability at all it's all very simple, he told you time and time again, turn the liquid form of gas into a vapour, he just did not use these words , so I'm telling you as I really dont care if they tell me I can't say it, TURN THE LIQUID INTO A VAPOR, then introduce it to your fuel injection rail, or your throttle body injection or your carburetor, it will them be sucked in through the intake stroke and there wont be any pollution from the exhaust stroke
I am a 66 year old age pensioner and I want to buy an electric car. They are so expensive that I can not buy one. Our Australian government gets a 50% tax on every liter of fuel sold. So 1.80 dollar per liter they get 90 cents. They do not want any body owning electric cars and so they put a huge import tariff onto all electric cars imported into Australia. I do not want petrol gas or any thing I want a non polluting electric car. Before people start saying electricity causes pollution by making it, I am going to use solar cells to recharge my electric car battery. It will take longer to recharge but I live in the center of town and I am in no hurry.
@Dohn Joe Yes it does but I am going to use solar panels to charge my car. It will take a while but it is free and I am cheap.
7-27-2019 - - - I didn't see in the video where the problem with running "lean" causing overheating of the cylinders was resolved. Did I miss it? So, now with this I can get 70 miles per gallon but need a new engine every 100 miles - or did I miss something?
My truck burns straight veggie oil or diesel.
Changed nothing but rubber for poly fuel lines added more heater hose to warm a tank
I might have a cxouple of suggestions that will improve your setup. My brother and his friend made a headgasket with four sets of platinum points equally mounted around the cylinder. It was layered in between the gasket material like a circuit board. So instead of firing from the spark plug it fired from each set of points. The platinum points had no place to hold any carbon build up so would not foul out like a spark plug. and firing the gas mixture with four sets of spark burned the fuel vapor quicker and more completely.(old airplanes had two sparkplugs per cylinder)
Giving an increase of power with less fuel consumtion and less emissions. My idea to add to this is to reduce fuel droplet size thus increasing surface area of the fuel by using an ultrasonic mister which instantly vaporizes a drop of liquid to a finer mist than a carburator is capable of. This should also increase power while decreasing consumption andEmmisions. The reason you do not see this gasket method of spark on the market now is a sparkplug company bought their patent. Their was a drawback to the design they had not worked out at the time and that was that the gasket was thicker and you had to torque it down just right or it would blow the gasket. But this was 40 years ago and we have much better materials to work with now. I really hope you read this or anyone else . It could be an easy add on for cars well worth the cost for the increased economy and decrease of emmisions. Hopefully give a little more time for the transition to the totally electric cars that are coming. Jake The Snake Was interested in the gasket for his race cars as it would have been a huge advantage. So if you need an investor you might want to try him. It also goes to show how money trumps humanityand that big corporations (Firestone) are more concerned with the bottom line than reducing polution to save mankind. We really need to institute a crimes against humanity law for people like that and Big Pharma who suppress or overprice discoveries that benefit life.. Please send a comment should you read this. I like to think I am at least trying yo help.
You are right but the one who sent me this link to watch is already doing what the presenter is suggessting. It is very easy and does not require opening of tapet cover or engine etc, just extend n drop a pipe straight in the air cleaner and that is it.
Smokey Unick has a US Patent on Hot vapor flow fuel technology based on the same concept. He built a fire with a vapor flow carb with rotating brushes to vaporize the fuel.
Smokey been dead 20 years.
petrol does not burn as a liquid it has to be a vapour for ignition. A carburettor vaporise petrol using the venturi effect an injector vaporises petrol when its sprayed.
Chris Waddington to my knowledge sir any spray of liquid is still liquid even if its small droplets.vapour is something else.cheers
It does a poor job at at as most of the fluid is merely atomized, not vaporized as is commonly thought.
The venturi is to speed up the airflow across the jets, that lowers pressure, that draws the liquid in. The fuel is turned to vapor with heat, fuel evaporates faster as heat increases, it's vapor point is very low, well below the freezing point of water. Carburetors have trouble vaporizing the fuel with a cold engine hence the need for hot air pick up pipes, heated manifolds etc and the choke. Carburetors are particularly bad in cold weather and have to supply a very rich mixture to get enough vapor.
I can flick some water out of a faucet at you to cool you off or bounce the iceball I've had in the fridge for 6 months off your skull. You tell me there's no difference...after you get up and wipe your tears.
Atomize
Note that in a reciprocating engine the pistons and connecting rods must accelerate to high speed and then stop twice per Revolution. This produces a lot of wasted energy. The pistons and rods get hot, and the heat must be dissipated in The radiator. However in a gas turbine the motion is always perpendicular to the force, so no work is done. We should all be driving gas turbines, with pressurized hydrogen as fuel.
You are sooo far from the truth...
The compression stroke heats the air and vaporizes the mist of fuel, no problem, so long as the mist is fine enough. Learn some thermodynamics and this would be obvious. Also at high pressure stuff burns a lot faster.
...ignites quicker.
That's why it takes a moment for the engine to start. Spark = Heat to vaporize the gasoline into a gas. 2 or 3 rotations and enough heat has built up to ignite the GAS. Maybe if I put a heater on my gas tank, no danger there
It makes a lot of sense. This should be researched further by the big automakers... Compressed natural gas is used in some vehicles which has a far less carbon footprint than regular gasoline. The trick is to turn gasoline into an explosive gas (not combustable, but explosive with the oxygen already added) near the engine itself safely. This definitely makes sense if you watch the video carefully.
You explained that in a simple to understand demo, now tell me where to buy your unit?
Vaporize the fuel first with a vacumn chamber...then inject it into the piston chamber..then ignite it.. Much better fuel burn...better power...and a wider timing range....All vapor system ...vapor is all that will ignite fully😊
no explosions when converting liquid into gas?
No the liquid is converted to vapor and as it does it its temperature is dropped 180 degrees Fahrenheit which not ignite until enjected into the engine but a back flow vavle is a goog idea...burns like propane😊
@@perlitocabauatan9285 no but u should have a one way valve at the intake manifold it burns like propane with almost the same emissions
@@patrickgalloway5078 i am not about to convert liquid fuel to gas which is impractical and dangerous if done at home. i'd better buy it in canisters, if available like lpg. 100mpg? theoretical, not in the real world, right?
No its has to be converted just prior to injection to the engine and no it it not goiing to explode or anthing just the opisite it is too cold to ignite in atmospheric pressure and the vacum chamber can only implode due to a minus atmosophere.
wake up teacher. The gasolene your talking about isn't a fossil fuel.
wow 😂
Thank God he is Canadian. Tired of always Americans embarrassing me.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY Very interesting what these environmental whack job say for one there is no fuel sort shortage. Number to your average Joe at burns 4 liters of jet fuel per second
Keep in mind Allgore In case you forgot was vice president when Hillary was in charge of the country for eight years wasted all this jet fuel flying around the country to tell us how we needed to drive electric cars
Did you mean Al Gore? Or Allgore? Or Allegory? ... "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.:" So in this case, you are correct if you meant "Al Gore" or "Allegory", but if the latter, then you shouldn't have capitalized the A. Hillary was no in charge of the country ... Monica was.
What does anything really mean? What do you mean by the word mean?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 you nailed it
Spell much ?
Fossil fuel is comprised of hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon. Our engines burn the hydrogen and spit out the carbon, hence, pollution. If you use resonance (frequency) to separate water into hydroxide, your internal combustion engine will produce over 950 times the energy it took to produce the hydroxide, and you get the water back, to use over and over. Hydroxide is a unique fuel, in exact ratios it implodes, imbalance the ratios, or add ambient air, and it explodes.
Thank you for the video. i demonstrated the technology you speak of in this video, to my neighbors some years ago. Everyone oohed and awed, but not one of them did it for themselves. Indoctrination has deep effects.
Of course you are right. Except do you have the knowledge that oil does not come from fossil and any automobile can run on water. How about large jet airliners really run on compressed air. How about we always had free energy. We have been lied to since the beginning.
compressed air for a air liner???
Drugs are bad M'kay...
Smoky Yunick did this in the 60's or 70's in Florida!
whatever happened to him? Is his method still in use?
Best damn garage in Daytona. He called it the homogenizer I think.
He got arkansided like Stan myers
ruclips.net/video/oLCHc8kTmbU/видео.html
He built an iron duke powered fiero that broke 100mpg
80% of the video was a crash course of engine mechanics
The ideas are very good. Those who control the economy will not allow it. These people live a privileged life and do not want to defend the environment. Thank you.
FUN FACT: For a bicycle MPG (per gallon of lard eaten) Vs. Fossil Fuel MPG, the MPG for the manual transmission ZE1 Insight is 53-61 mpg. MPG for Lard, a biker gets around 1000 mpg
Oh, the efficiency of an animal!!!
no sorry ,the main efficiency loss in 4 strokes is the 3 parasitic cycles . You miss by miles
No crude oil isn't a "fossil fuel". Do your research. God bless.
Right... Put a dinosaur in your tank. Put a sock in your mouth and stop spewing falsehoods. The earth makes it's own oil and not by some dead animal hypothesis millions of years ago.
Even the industry has called it fossil fuel for ages, we've known for decades its formed by algae but you don't hear big oil calling it algae fuel do we?
Todd Olson Yes you get a thumps up!!!
And this matters why?
@@toddolson573 Yep, they've forced that narrative into our throats for the last 150 years. At the rate he was talking about, there would have had to have been dinosaurs standing side by side all over the entire planet but then there's more, they would have needed to be about 200 dinosaurs high. And we'd still run out of fuel....
Evaporation methods of fuel delivery were one of the first methods of fuel induction. The engine used in the wright flyer would be an example.
The first flights of the Wright Flyer were done without any throttle butterflys. Raw gas was in a tray in front of the intakes. The 4 cyl engine made 12 HP.
Here's the one simple trick: only drive down steep hills. For flat surfaces and uphills use a tow truck.
That is a very funny comment. Thank you.
I thought you were going to tell us to push the car uphill.
He is right! People have been killed by the top heads of gas companys. I have a friend that did what he talking about and got about 75 miles to a gal. There is a kit to do it now and think it was State Farm people who helped get this kit patented and put on the market!
So how does the pre-mixer maintain an adequate rate of combustible vapor flowing into the engine at all different engine loads and speeds? And how is an accurate air/fuel mixture maintained at all engine loads and speeds? And how do you prevent the pre-mixer and induction system from exploding if a misfire occurs and sends a flame backwards into the pre-mixer?
This is just a fancy vapor carb. The amount of air coming in determines how much fuel is vaporized. More airflow more vapor less load less vapor. It's load dependant. All vapor carbs are is a water bong. Your intake air tube will go through a small container of gas and bubbles releasing gas vapor. Hit hard you get a better hit. Take it easy it goes easy. Now on your fuel side out that is routed through your intake now not your injectors. Air and fuel all come together premixed. You get those little spark arrestors there likr a dollar it's basically fine screen meshing in the line if it back fires no problem. Your lawn mower probably has one you can take off it. You can build one of these for literally 20. You need a 2 gallon gas can, tubing for the intake and fuel and some gasket maker to seal the tubes that now protrude out your can. Flash arrested spark arrestor same thing different name cheap stick it in good to go.
All this one is, instead of putting the gas can under your hood and pulling the fuel pump fuse. He's made one where the fuel pump will add fuel to that tank slowly as its needed. F 150s get around 100mpg with them. 2 gallon gas tank under the hood is more the plenty
@@JamesSmith-lt5zz
Excellent my friend!
como lo hicistes ?
Es decir cada cuanto tiempo manda gasolina del tanque original a los otros ?
Colocastes algun flotante para medir el nivel ?
I was at one of Donald Novaks 200mpg seminars about 1980 and dabbled with a modified air cleaner vaporizer. One of the simplest designs. His solution for the inevitable backfires exploding in the pre-mixer as you say, instead of a short stud & wing nut holding the top of air cleaner on, was a 2” longer stud in the top of carburetor with a spring over it, then the wing nut. When the fireball happens it gets largely snuffed out. Also, keep a fire extinguisher handy!
right dude, your argument might of had more validity if you weren't showing video from the 70's.Plus everything is possible with a whiteboard.
The very cold weather in Canada makes people do these kinds of clickbait videos.
CauseAndEffect ... check out anything from Donald J Trump, then discuss others.
Iol good one !
I’m Canadian but my brain hasn’t froze yet
I always read the comments on a video b4 watching! It has probally saved me hours of worthless crap. The people who are making comments are a lot smarter than the posted content. Thanks!
*Several easy tricks is no 1) Run only Downhill, No 2) Slipstream a Lorry (Truck) No 3) Light 'Gas' Pedal No 4) Get A Diesel and keep Revs low. No 5) Keep Car in Garage and warm up to 90° Before Starting Engine. No 6) Do not exceed 58 MPH. If Obeying all these instructions with overinflated tyres you can get over 100 mpg. I never have but regularly get 74+ MPG (UK Gallon) in my Mercedes B200 CDi AMG Line.*
Nice to know but it doesn't seem very practical for the common everyday driver. I wish it was.
This is just one of those scams that simply will not go away. It was around, I remember, at least as far back as the mid 1960's.
Raw fuel does NOT burn, a carburetor or fuel injection system does NOT "DUMP" raw fuel directly into an engine. Fuel is precisely metered, finely atomized and introduced into an airstream created by an engines intake system in the form of a vacuum. This very finely atomized fuel and air mixture is mixed and metered as close as possible to a ratio of 14.7:1. An engines combustion process relies heavily on the principals of thermal dynamics. The factors involved that is required to create the proper thermal dynamics to occur for proper combustion is a proper mixture of fuel to air ratio, combustion space volume, intake fuel/air delivery timing, and ignition timing source. If any part of this combination of events is not correct or is disturbed in any manor, the engines power and overall performance is dramatically affected.
Once these relatively complex processes and principles are fully understood, only then should an individual be prepared to make changes or alterations to the internal combustion gasoline engine. I have viewed your video and you lacked mentioning of emulsion, atomization, thermal dynamics, fuel properties or what the stoichiometric efficiency is in a gasoline engine.
Knowing and understanding the principals required to support the needs of an internal combustion engine leads me to a realization that what we need is an alternative fuel source other than the use of gasoline or an entirely new and different power source, after all our current internal combustion gasoline piston engine design and theory is nearly 200 years old
A gentleman by the name of Paul Pantone developed the GEET system that worked very well yet ran into troubles with his invention and left the country.
In the early 1780 a process was discovered that produced a fuel source known as water gas.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Water gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is a useful product, but requires careful handling due to its flammability and the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. The water-gas shift reaction can be used to reduce the carbon monoxide while producing additional hydrogen, resulting in water gas. Pure hydrogen can be obtained from water gas by using the water-gas shift reaction, after subsequent removal of the carbon dioxide formed when carbon monoxide reacts with water.
not always , carbs did not atomize the fuel like fuel inj. (that's why the term dump fuel )and todays high pressure common rail or even better direct inj. atomize the fuel much more and it's measured more precisely , just follow behind an old carbureted car and tell if you smell the pollution
If a carburetor did not atomize fuel then I would like someone to explain the principles of an emulsion tube, how and what an emulsion tube\chamber does and why they are so important to the function of a carburetor,,, Additionally, I would like someone to identify where the Pintle valve
eedle is located within a fuel injection system. Fuel MUST be atomized to a fine mist and introduced into an air stream (except for diesel engines) prior to entering the combustion chamber for proper combustion to occur. I am a professional ASE certified technician engine builder, tuner and smog testing tech with nearly 40 years experience.
a engine can run by dripping gas straight into the intake, valves open ,spark , boom exhaust
read comments save your time ! half way through and we establish basic concept combustion cycle then more slow talking leading us nowhere.
30 years ago Fords said that they were able to get over 80 mpg & the oil companies said, Unless you want $7 a gallon gas, leave it where it's at. Oil companies have a lot of pull, plus there's black ops people out there that'll kill anyone who develops a 100 mpg vehicle. They've done it before.....
Yes, I've seen a report of someone who had an experimental vehicle with a modified fuel system that provided 100 mpg, or something thereabouts. The manufacturer somehow sold it to a customer. The manufacturer got wind of the mistake, sent some agents to retrieve the wayward vehicle by hook or crook, and the vehicle is gone.
@@realjaxon See, I know from watching mainly short films, or segments of longer films/video's that there's been many people who were found murdered/ or just dead but COD listed as Suicide or Natural Causes, like 2 or 3 gunshot wounds to the head, which causes me along with millions of others that in Black Ops world, more than likely tied to big Oil Companies had to play a roll in these deaths. Except for the man down in Mississippi that invented a AA Battery Powered Machine that could power a home with power to spare to sell back to the local power company, back in the early 1980's. At any rate, when he was able to get funding, since the income he lived off of supplied most of the money needed to get his invention Patented, Copyright, which they did do the 1st time but it was revoked about 2 or 3 months later & till his life ended by natural causes, prior to his death, he tore his generator apart, disposed of it & burned all his paperwork. I believe I watched on Amazon Prime. The Movie Titles; ''Newman''. If you have Amazon, watch it because he was on the news, won a Patent, then they pulled it away from him because the ''Physicist from the Patent & Trademark Office weren't qualified to grant him a Patent. Now who would be? The men who knew nothing about inventions, who revoked his Patents? . It was an interesting video. The man who was a reporter from the local news station, quit his job & went to work for Joseph Newman, for over 25 years, which his employment ended when the Newman was so upset with the people who worked for the U.S. Government & told them he was so angry, [in his own words] I'm so mad I'd like to kill you, you mother fucker... That Man was Mad.... If you have Amazon Prime, find it & watch it.
I see a marginal improvement in fuel efficiency with more complete combustion, but there are complexities and limitations in a piston engine of any configuration, whether reciprocating, orbital or planetary. Pre-ignition must be avoided. Each stroke represents a distinct process - induction, compression, power and exhaust. Each process must take place separately in its own limited time interval, because all four processes occur within the same space, but cannot share the same time interval. To gain the best efficiency, the four processes need to be separated by location in the engine, rather than by time interval. Doing that affords each process the opportunity to occur continuously. Ergo the gas turbine promises to be the most efficient internal combustion engine, when designed and built correctly. Surprisingly, the axial flow reaction blading type turbine is not necessarily the best of this class of engine. Instead, a Tesla Turbine system comprising an induction turbine, compression turbine with fuel injection, a power turbine and an exhaust turbine (four turbines, all on the same shaft) is likely to be the best. But the power and exhaust turbines will run at especially high temperatures. They require fabrication from materials of very high thermal tolerance.
Where are the plans for this "One Simple Trick"?
patent CA # 2876642
Wow, this guy cured my insomnia. 5 mins in and zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
This a vaporizing carburetor invented in the early 70s. The company was Fish Carburetors, I believe. Fuel injection for autos was just being pushed by car manufacturers because its very controllable, safe and fixed the piston cooling issues without massive changes to the engine itself. The patent for vaporizing carbs was bought by some big corp, I don't remember who, but Im sure it was either big oil or one of the big 3. The full mileage with vaporizing carbs can easily reach 80 or 90 mile a gal in a chevy v8 like a 327 or 350.
The real secret behind this sort of thing is simplicity. If the general populace really understood how easy this is, people would revolt and it could quickly and seriously damage the world economy.
The real advances in technology is GRAVMIP, which stands for gravity manipulation. (don't ask me why it's not 'GRAVMAP', that makes too much sense I guess). It's one of the easiest concepts, yet one of the most difficult actions to actually perform. It's also called Canvael Spatial Distortion, but they moved away from that term because its too descriptive.
Going downhill at an idle maybe. Mileage is just not going to be that much better for the same power output. Anyone can cobble an engine that barely runs and claim it gets 100mpg. However it isn't useful that way at all. We need actual power to do the work that we need done.
I've tested the Fish carburetor on a 360 ci. Chrysler engine and it was guaranteed to increase mileage of 20% over the standard carburetor which was a
two-barrel or four-barrel factory carburetor. The carburetor did do it and even exceeded the mileage guarantee. Fuel injection will not do that and the
the main goal is to present fuel to the engine in a vaporized form for complete combustion/power and low emissions. I would say, the only reason that
we are using fuel injection on today's engines is for the convenience of easy starting and use for the average public. Smokey Yunick had the right design
and it was not taken seriously by the manufacturers and GOV. Check the U.S. Patents on fuel systems that never went to production because of the
corporate greed and GOV control of inventions that never were used which is all about taxes and money. Delve in what gasoline and the number of
compounds/vaporzation temperatures it consists of to get to a vaporized state. The product is a poor fuel choice and check on the Fish Carburetor.
Fish carb eh? Where did you get that? 20% is not 100 mpg
I thought that water was used to cool engines. What is the purpose of the fan and radiator?
Water is used to transfer heat and help mediate the temperature of the heads and block. Keeping the oil cool is of paramount importance though. The oil is the first thing to heat up significantly because it literally creates its own heat when it is cool and viscous. Being forced to shear between tight bearing clearances generates a lot of heat. It generates less heat the warmer it gets due to viscosity changes.
Oil has a relatively narrow range where it does its best work. Too cold and the filter bypass opens letting dirty oil through(this happens more than people think). Too hot and the oil breaks down very fast which cuts into its performance.
Oil does not transfer heat as well as water but it is in charge of cooling the bottom end. Oil cools the bottom of the piston and it cools all the bearing surfaces. Bearings have to get hot before they can gall.
Oil flow at the head and upper cylinder wall is not enough to effectively cool those areas so instead we put water through those areas. The end result is the head can actually help cool the oil though we usually add oil coolers in heavy duty applications just because we want better control over the oil cooling and it is more effective in engine longevity if we can keep the oil from reaching higher temps.
In many cases the oil cooler is actually in the radiator. The radiator removes heat from the oil and the water and transfers that heat to the air via the fan.
Remember the critical thing is to keep the oil temps low for long life and better engine protection. But not too low because that can cause resistance that generates more heat and if cold enough on a used filter can cause the filter bypass to open. Not something we want to happen.
The biggest concern that I have about the liquid fuel turned into a gas before it reaches the combustion chamber of an engine is that once it becomes a gas it is volatile and you're basically sitting on a bomb how big is a mom depends on how big the gas bubble is and that's why people won't use it! Now if you found a way to do it in smaller increments from liquid to gas just to burn almost a hundred percent of the carbon off of that, then if the explosion is small enough it can actually be self-contained with a safety valve but this would have to be a very intricate system and it would have virtually no room for error or God help anyone who gets in an accident of any kind!
Awesome Presentation !!! I've watched your video before but it was suggested by YT so I watched it again. Thank you for trying to educate our propagandized Brothers and Sisters !!!
Thank you.
What you say is that we should return to the carburetor the purpose of which was just to convert petrol to gas. Carburetor = gasifier.
This is not a new idea. it is a step backwards.
OK, the physics make sense, but where do I find this "fuel saver" and how much and the "rest of the story"?
he can drive with ur watch time money he is getting from youtube.
you go fuck yourself watching non- common sense video like this...
i m stupid too....... just like u
yes i can sell you one send me $1,000,000.00 and i'll ship it to you. I promise.!!! ))))))
Build your prototype and let's see the results.
If I built one I would use it in private. Wouldn't You? Look at the outrage this guy is getting :( eek.
...all he knows how to do is draw on a white board...
hold on. he is still trying to wikipedia it.
That was on a par with Govt information films entitled how to take a door of its hinges and hide under it if nuclear war breaks out....
It works but has a big problem in that exhaust valves could not stand the heat produced. petrol is part of the cooling system. using propane cools the mix of gas and air and helps cool the valves. petrol gas would damage the exhaust valves. That is why an engine is tuned to use a certain amount of petrol and it is not advised to run lean.
Some have designed gasoline vaporizing intake systems, but they had so many fire issues and under power that the idea of pre-vaporizing is moot. The main issue is the energy required to power an engine with a load it is operating. An engine with only itself to power uses a tiny fraction of the energy one under load uses.
One way that does assist fuel consumption is adding a water vapor mist to the intake. I've used such a system for years, yet it is just a fraction better than current intake systems. However, the mist does help reduce emissions.
All these gimmicks have the same issue. You need a fuel air mixture of 14 to one for combustion to take place. Too lean and it just won't fire. So no matter how efficient your delivery system, you can't change the ratio. The second issue is it takes a certain amount of HP to move a vehicle, and that can't be changed no matter how efficient the fuel system.
His logic on the fire triangle is wrong. The heat to ignite the fuel and air does not come from the engine. It comes from the spark plug. On a diesel engine the heat comes from the compression cycle.
He is also dead wrong that the liquid gas doesn't vaporize until it is ignited. The carb or injectors vaporizes the fuel as it passes thu. It it didn't, you would have a flooded engine.
*Robert Heinkel* The ratio you're referring to is called stoichiometric. Gasoline's stoichiometric level is 14.7:1. Ironically the same number of atmospheric pressure at sea level. This is the ratio that gasoline burns as close to "complete" as it can with the least amount of heat. It doesn't mean it makes the vehicle's engine the most efficient though. It just produces fewer hydrocarbons. 13.7:1 is actually more efficient.
Your HP argument doesn't matter in this scenario. My 1971 Camaro weighs right about 3200 lbs. With the 350 I have in it I get about 16mpg doing 65 mph. If I were to replace the engine with a 2.5L 4 cylinder it would use less fuel to produce the same amount of work even if I were to add weight to keep the car at 3200 lbs. It's not like it would jump to 30 mpg but it would use less fuel.
Overall you're correct about the ignition cycle. IDK why you mention diesel engines but whatever.
And lastly, he is partially correct. The fuel is first atomized by the carburetor or injectors, emulsified by the air it's mixed with and vaporized under compression by the heat created from the compression. Then it's ignited. It's not uncommon to have fuel puddle up on the floor in the plenum of an intake manifold on a carbureted engine before it reaches operating temperature. It's much harder to atomize fuel when the surrounding air is cooler.
That is incorrect Robert Heinkel. liquid gas starts vaporizing the instant it leave the injector and or carburetor. Spill some on your hand and you will see that it can't be avoided in room temperature air.
*consaka1* "Liquid gas" only atomizes when it leaves the injector or when it is drawn through the carburetor and mixed with the air being rushed through the venturi. Vaporization doesn't begin until the heat from the compression stroke heats the air/fuel mixture. What you're referring to when you say "spill some on your hand" is evaporation. Granted that is a form of vaporization but occurs below the 212* F (boiling). The vaporization inside a cylinder happens much faster than normal evaporation.
Evaporation is another form of vaporization. My statement above is absolutely correct. Heat will make it happen faster but it starts happening immediately on exposure to air. 212*F Is not the specific boiling point of gasoline and is really irrelevant to my statement and to the conversion of gasoline to a volital fume or gaseous form.
*consaka1* I'm not trying to argue. Just educate. I never said you were wrong about anything. You just weren't 100% correct.
I’m not convinced that this will work. How will this system actually improve performance? The system would need to adjust air/fuel ratio (Stoichiometric ratio) for different loads, temperatures, atmospheric pressures etc.
Thus is already predefined by the ECU and engine management system through the complex network of sensors and predefined maps/programs.
This may work well if predefined for idle ratios but the system is far from ideal to handle the variables of average driving.
again yu R overthinkin...watch CNN for more information on what to believe..
There is a TON of wrong things in this video. Please do your research, plus, this technology is used today in cars al over the world.
I believe this to be true. I burn wood for heat in my home. I always thought that wood just burned when it got hot enough until I read an article that explained how heated wood releases gases that burn. My stove has perforated pipes inside across the top that bring in air from outside (below) the stove. Me and my rabbit like to sit and watch fire that seems to shoot out of the holes while flames dance above the logs.
Back in the 1970's there were stories circulating about similar concepts/devices. One guy claimed that a nail thrown up by his lawn mower blade pierced the gas tank with a small hole. He said it seemed to never run out of gas after that; his theory was that air entered the small hole and increased the the evaporation rate of the fuel - do you think "running on fumes" is a myth? I'm not a physicist but I've heard there is a calculation for the caloric (as in Energee!) content of an ounce of gasoline. A VERY small amount of gasoline will produce explosions comparable to those produced by TNT. Other people I heard back then used air pumps and an expansion tank of sorts to vaporize the gasoline before introducing it into the manifold. I feel it's only a matter of changing liquid gasoline to a vapor, safely, and mixing it with the appropriate amount of oxygen before or as it enters the cylinder. I kind of think that a small percentage of water vapor could also be introduced with it to increase the pressures produced - quite inexpensively. There are a lot of combustion engines on earth. We are burning our planet's blood and fouling the air.
The title tells you how useful this video is
Real title: "Simple trick to get you to waste 16 minutes of your life watching yet another video where there is no connection between title and content. " Included bonus: Hundreds of comments from viewers who are so personally damaged and scarred for life, incensed, insulted, and irresistably compelled to point out and correct, what they percieve as a misuse of the term 'fossil fuel' that they are completely distracted from the discussion of anything else.
Kenneth Vaughan I agree with you 100% a waste of my time to watch this video
Right on the spot. Who is this idiot who made this video.
Here is one from a guy you may never heard of....Tom Ogle. He created this Fuel Vapor System in the 1970's .... and patented it. The oil companies bought his patent, not to make them, but to keep them from being made. Tom Ogle was killed later under suspicious circumstances ! .....The patent protection has long since expired so anyone can make the system and sell it today! ..... but they might die for doing it. The oil companies don't want it produced! .... Here is the patent for it. (notice on the left it says in RED ...FULL DOCUMENT) ... click it for the full documentation. .....Tom Ogle would have loved to see it used by everyone! ... pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=04177779&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D4,177,779.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F4,177,779%2526RS%3DPN%2F4,177,779&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page
Kenneth Vaughan I'm glad i read your comment 27 seconds in
Yes my friend and it was my pleasure! ..... Tom Ogle wasn't out to make ton's of money he was trying to be helpful and that is why I pass his patent on to everyone.
How good does it work for you? what kind of gas millage do you get with it?
Erick I have been involved in projects like this one you have.
I'd like to talk to you about that.
How can we get in touch?
Thank you for sharing this video.
So, what's the trick ? You need to show folks how to accomplish this.
He did.
Does anyone remember a product that was demonstrate on TV that was just a simple operation to add it to your engine intake fuel line but just before the injector? it would inject air into the pipe in such a way that it would mix it and it would actually make your car do way more miles/gallon of fuel? I have seen this demonstrate in the 80 maybe even the 70's but it could be found nowhere after that add. Maybe it did run with electricity, i'm not sure. One thing is for sure, 'they' took it off the public eye very fast...
this stuff has been around a long time my friend put one on his truck, and then their were special spark plugs to save gas etc. He never got more than 12 mpg
oh i see... thanks!
Sylvain Piche I have purchased a HI CLONE device which has no moving parts and only has razor sharp blades with a slight twist. It's meant to give better mixing of fuel and air. Mine sits in the air intake just at the throttle body. No maintenance....but little to no difference in power or economy. Some people will put a suitable device in each manifold to head area....6cyl equals 6 devices etc. While I'm open to suggestions I did see a guy on U tube running a V6 on petrol vapour by connecting the air intake to a crudely fitted plastic jrry can. Cheers from AUS
Liquid gas is not what goes into the cylinder, that's a flooding out situation, it atomizes in the airflow to the cylinder when adjusted properly
Liquid gas is what goes into a engine. This is why direct port injection cars have fsiled and manufacturers have now gone with a hybrid still split or direct port injection. Direct port every 30k miles the injectors are completely sludged and gummed up and run horrible. It has no gas splashing on the intake valves to keep them clean. On a regular port fuel injected car around 70 percent of gas is wasted. The gas comes in splashing going all over the intake valves. Gas is a solvent and keeps them cool and clean. Bottom end of Motors run 400 degrees. Now some of the fuel cools and Lubricates the combustion chamber. Now on the exit it kinda splits. We have this horrible emissions bs EGR, unburned fuel cools and cleans the exhaust valve, the rest of the unburned liquid fuel is rerouted back through the intake through the PCV for another pass. The rest goes into the other horrible emissions device the catalytic converter with the goal of being incinerated to make emissions nil. But they restrict and make back pressure hurting gas mileage. They clog and it can be partially clogged killing gas mileage for years and you wouldn't know unless it fully clogged. Removing my cat and removed the EGR with new headers. And gas mileage went up. The restrictive devices make us burn more fuel. But anyways when the fuel injector releases it's mist that splashes over intake valves that's still liquid. It's just like me spraying cars for a living. My paint gun atomizes the paint into a fine mist as its released its still liquid paint it's not a vapor. It doesn't go into vapor then back into liquid, fine mist. If you mist water on your face with a spray bottle that's atomization just droplets of whatever substance Only the vapor burns the rest of the gas is needed to keep the motor from overheating and Lubricsted. Gas has over 100 Chemicals in it. Gas doesn't lubricate like it use to since they removed the sulphur basically if your old enough you'll remember across America people's gas needles stop working when they reduced the sulphur content of gas to nothing. They took the zinc out of motor oil as well.
Maybe your car but not mine, it's,atomized before it gets into the cylinder
I thoroughly enjoyed this three minute presentation
I missed the one simple trick part as well.
Lost me at "fossil fuels"
Hurricane Alley I love that term, "fossil fuels". You know, when large groups of dinosaurs all decided to commit suicide by jumping into the same hole at the same time, lol. Otherwise, they would have decomposed, naturally , on the surface and into nitrogen for the soil, that is, whatever remains were left after the vultures, rats and maggots got of them.
OIL IS ABIOTIC AND CREATED FROM THE EARTH!
Hot vapor engine has been invented in the early 1900's bud.. nothing new.
And everyone that tries to do this and push it suddenly disappears or is locked up. Big oil companies won't let that technology be on the market. Id they did gas prices would be about $20 a gallon. So they would still make their $$$.
It was used all the way through ww2 and they vanished. The nazis were getting 80mpg in v8 Mercedes with vapor carbs. This is just a fancy one that the fuel pump fills the tank Instead of using a gas can under the hood
He is not presenting anything new but rather stirring up the population to a change much needed. Companies call this promotion.
@@chadcervantes6066 Yea and by saying so and or showing how he may disappear. Most that does this ya never hear from them again. Either silenced by big government or a tragic accident happens. Even a suicide. If ya do it then do it no keep your trap closed. Look up the history on it. Oil companies will not let this be a new standard. Or has will hit $100 a gallon or more. They have to make their $ off oil. Plain and simple!
the best explanation and simple show I ever seen and hoard !!!
I believe what Paul Pantone, "GEEK" had to say about gas and the oil industry. They will not allow us to have cars and trucks that get 100 mpg. They will lose to much money. Back in 50's my dad worked as a mechanic. He told me in the 70's they had carbs that would get 75 to 100 mpg carbs way back then. But gas was so cheap no one cared. Pantone said pretty much the same thing. We have the technology to do so many great things but those in power keep us from using it.
Where can I get more information and possibly of getting this for my car