In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
113 to 138 mpg!!! What do you think?
derTotentanz
Member Posts: 23 ✭✭
http://www.get113to138mpg.com/
Now first off the way this guy writes makes me think this guy is either lying or a bumbling idiot (like a Homer Simpson type).
The fact that he used gasoline to clean an evaporator coil makes me think the latter. I am a physics major and some of what he says isn't exactly incorrect.
Actually, this sounds interesting - it is actually an "improved" form of the ole' water drip carburation system. This was an old "high MPG"
system that on carburated (non fuel injected) engine basically
introduced a small amount of water into the fuel/air mixture, as water
vapor, that lowered the temperature at which the gasoline would
vaporise, thus allowing more of the mixture to burn, lower the engine
temperature, and produce more power - more power meaning less fuel
wasted and burned, so you go further for the same amount of gas.
Anyhow, this was the idea behind it, and I am not sure how much of this idea was "junk science" and how much was real science. It was apparently something originally conceived of during WWII. Anyone know more?
Anyhow, the idea that he used an evaporation coil to expose the gasoline to a system that would allow it to vaporise quicker, without using a water drip system (or maybe he does in some manner) - maybe that is the key to this "invention" - but he would still have to somehow get past the EFI system in the engine (fuel injectors on an engine are nothing more than fancy solenoid valves, with a misting system, that lets in the fuel mixture into the intake manifold in a fine mist, but not as vapors).
This system sounds interesting - but I am not sure if it would be worth the trouble or not to build. Of course, if he is really giving it away free...
-Eric
Your favorite gun sucks.
Now first off the way this guy writes makes me think this guy is either lying or a bumbling idiot (like a Homer Simpson type).
The fact that he used gasoline to clean an evaporator coil makes me think the latter. I am a physics major and some of what he says isn't exactly incorrect.
Actually, this sounds interesting - it is actually an "improved" form of the ole' water drip carburation system. This was an old "high MPG"
system that on carburated (non fuel injected) engine basically
introduced a small amount of water into the fuel/air mixture, as water
vapor, that lowered the temperature at which the gasoline would
vaporise, thus allowing more of the mixture to burn, lower the engine
temperature, and produce more power - more power meaning less fuel
wasted and burned, so you go further for the same amount of gas.
Anyhow, this was the idea behind it, and I am not sure how much of this idea was "junk science" and how much was real science. It was apparently something originally conceived of during WWII. Anyone know more?
Anyhow, the idea that he used an evaporation coil to expose the gasoline to a system that would allow it to vaporise quicker, without using a water drip system (or maybe he does in some manner) - maybe that is the key to this "invention" - but he would still have to somehow get past the EFI system in the engine (fuel injectors on an engine are nothing more than fancy solenoid valves, with a misting system, that lets in the fuel mixture into the intake manifold in a fine mist, but not as vapors).
This system sounds interesting - but I am not sure if it would be worth the trouble or not to build. Of course, if he is really giving it away free...
-Eric
Your favorite gun sucks.
Comments
Water injection was used in WW2, but not to increase economy. Rather, it enabled the engine to deliver more power without detonation. In other words, you coud run more fuel through the motor without it coming apart (in the short term anyway).
I know... The reverse of that theory is that you could lean the mixture and not have a meltdown, but airplanes can't carry a lot of water... And water freezes... And alcohol brings up another set of problems.
Now for the idea you proposed...
First, there's always the matter of mechanical loss. Since we're not talking a perpetual motion machine here, I'll assume a standard loss for an internal combustion engine. It's considerable.
Second, it would appear that our man is merely proposing a "better" way to deliver fuel to the cylinders for burning. It's a fact that pure vapor will ignite better than a liquid mist. It's also true that the injection of water will enhance the burn to a point.
BUT... You better be carring a tender to inject the amount of water required to make enough steam to increase your economy. You also might think about injecting more oxygen into the cylinders at the time of ignition rather than fooling with dangerous fuel vapors before they can be delivered to the cylinders. Anybody ever hear of intercoolers, turbos, and superchargers?
The real problem isn't what we burn, though the energy content of any given fuel is different. The problem lies in the way we burn it.
Reciprocating engines are ineffecient by their very nature. No matter what we do, this won't change until we build an engine that converts fuel and air into usable power without the need for cooling and at no mechanical loss. That's why we're studying the fuel cell.
As an engineer, add the thermal efficency of a typical gas engine which I remember as being somewhere in the 15% to 18% range. Add the BTU energy transfered by the cooling system, the radiant energy emminating from the engine, the heat leaving in the exhaust stream, and the mechanical loss from all the fuss going on inside that engine.
Those things together should add up to about 100%. Tweak any one of these factors and economy will increase, but an internal combustion engine as we know it won't become effecient until it radiates no heat at all and suffers no mechanical loss. I defy anyone to make a practical unit.
Nord
Personaly I experimented in a dodge colt 1973 and by leaning the mixture and the use of a nebulizer (Water atomizer)we obtained 200
MPG + ,other friends experimented with diesel engines with a compresion ratio of 1:14 injecting water instead of oil ....
water was transformed instantly to dry steam detonating inside the cylinder, as for each 1/273 volumen compressed the temperature increased one deg C ,at 2500C water injected just detonates into dry
steam converting thermal energy to mechanical one ....Mufler just freezes over....
System optimal operating temperatures over 80F (quite a drawback in winter) perfect for a generator in summer heat to run air conditioner a jet engine can be made to operate in reverse ,thermal absortion mode , 747 carries 12,000G of water just for that ...but they are not telling anyone (chem trails) HEhEhE...
A similar device is the lee roger car engine US Patent 4,292,804
runs on air .... No low temperature problem (only lubrication) as
engine freezez to a block ....
It works but your life span gets quite short if you built one and use it by yourself (you become accident prone ) bombs, bullets. knifes , car jacks .. you name it ! ....
Dodge prototype was destroyed I am lucky to be alive ....
But I do have a 4kw RV prototype ...500W in 4000W out !
quite interesting machine .... Take a look at a similar on the link
in next line.... Still in development... a go cart was taken to
110 MPH using a car batt with a 20HP 3450 RPM pulsed PM motor RV system.
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/arkresearch/rotoverter.htm
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/
Have fun. Die well ....
Poor choice of destiny make thoose that for upholding the law go against the "LAW".
Boeing prints are available and the aircraft DOESN'T carry 12,000 gal of water! Multiply 12,000 by 6.5 and you'll get the extra weight involved. Also, I've yet to see a water tanker hook up to one of these beauties!
While we're at it, you seem to be the guy who believes that one can get something for nothing. Why carry 12,000 gallons of water when you can make it directly from the atmosphere?
On to your Dodge... 200 mpg, huh? Let's see - Normal efficiency of the best tuned conventional engine might be 18%. Fuel economy for that engine might be 25 mpg overall. For ease of computing we'll say 20% and 25 mpg times 5 to bring the engine to 100%. Now we'll multiply the 25 mpg by five to come up to 125 mpg. That's the total energy contained in the fuel burned. 200 mpg would mean that you somehow exceeded 100% effeciency. Given that scenario you'd have to turn on the A/C to get heat!
Argue all you like about water and steam, but something has to bring it to the boiling point. That "something" is energy of some kind or another. In a diesel that energy comes from compression and burning of fuel, and compression is a loss. Since water is inert, it can only tranfer energy, not make it. Thus, there must be an energy source to keep things going and that's commonly known as FUEL. Your theory is flawed, sir.
In a gasoline engine the source of energy is a fuel/air mixture under fairly low compression fired by a spark. Compression is still a total loss, and try as you might water will not ignite. Inject liquid water and turn it into steam and that takes energy... Fact is, it takes a bit more energy to heat the water into steam than the steam can give back!
One last thought... Does running your jet engine in reverse produce Jet-A, water, and oxygen while acting as an air conditioner? And just where does the energy come from to do this?
No, Judge Dread, this time it is the Tinfoil Hats!
Nord
A port fuel injected motorcycle weighing less than 1,000 pounds AND driven at a slow enough speed to reduce drag (maybe 35-50 mph) might get 100mpg. Maybe.
If you could slowly fission/fusion the gasoline, nuclear physics dictates that you could produce the required amount of energy. Even if it were technically possible, I for one would not feel comfortable driving around a mini A-bomb.
Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
Nord
Glad to see you've cleaned it up, "hate" to see you kicked off again.-Ralph
Nothing very, very good or very, very bad lasts for very, very long.
Water Injection was also used on tubocharged Corvairs but not successfully because of lack of operator maintainence. New systems use sensors, etc. to control "knock" etc.
If you want real high mileage performance there's one contest where they give contestants a fixed amount of fuel and see who goes the furtherest. Small, high-temp diesels predominate, "cars" are super lightweight and streamlined. Not practical, but they do produce some big numbers.
Now if we'd shift to ethanol (not methanol) for fuel we could keep a lot of that oil money at home, but that's another topic!
Wild Turkey"if your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail"
Any engine that radiates heat is inefficient.
Any engine that has mechanical loss is inefficient.
Any engine that fails to turn burned fuel into pure CO2 and H2O is inefficient.
Based on the above...
No matter where the BTU comes from, the result of its use is based on the percentage used for actual work, internal engine losses, the amount lost to unused (radiated) heat, and the degree to which we complete the burn of whatever fuel we choose.
Fuels...
Choose anything that has BTU's. Anything from dirty diapers to hydrogen can be used as fuel. Gassification of the fuel is probably the most efficient method of delivery. The only real difference is that given a certain volume, each fuel will contain a different BTU content and different burn characteristics.
Take hydrogen which should, in theory, burn and give off energy, CO2, and H2O. That won't exactly be the case using atmospheric gasses and the good old internal combustion engine. Thus, even hydrogen won't burn at 100% efficiency... And there's still the same old issue of mechanical and heat loss.
So... We're back to where we started. Until we replace the old internal combustion heat pump with something much more efficient, we're not going to see much change in how we use (and waste) the BTU.
Now let's all go out and fill those airliners full of water and put them in reverse. We'll fix any potential for global warming, make millions of gallons of Jet-A, and air conditon every home in the world. Electric will flow backwards from our appliances into the generators and the utilities will have to export coal back to the mines...
Or, maybe not!
Nord