Heating the fuel without vaporizing it in the lines does very little. The specific heat capacity of gasoline is so low compared to the latent heat of vaporization. In the end it might have a noticeable effect, but the risk of vapor binding injectors is too great. (unless you run a high pressure fuel pump) Why do you think I never tried it.

FI however does some very interesting things, many of them good.

A bubbler system does get fuel into the engine as a vapor, but it has very little control over the fuel air mixture. Also liquid fuel is carried over with the vapor. Because gasoline does not have a single boiling point it's the high temperature stuff that's the problem. The aromatics are going to vaporize regardless of what method you use, that's why they're there. This is also why there are different blends for summer and winter. Winter blend has more aromatics to keep the fuel vaporizing at low temperatures. Summer blends have more of the heavier oils and that's why they give better fuel economy. This may also give some hint as to why people claim to get better fuel economy when they add acetone to gas.

 

You mentioned you had thought about it, but i never said you didn't try it. I'm just tossing in opinions and seeing the responses from knowledgable people. About the little control of fuel air mixture, that's why i think a second throttle that will let only air in could offer some control. The thought was to eliminate the fuel injectors by switching off their relay and using only the bubbling vapor as a fuel delivery system. Or what do you think would be a better way to get the effects of complete fuel combustion offered by vaporization?

Also what interestingly good things does FI give ya besides hp/tq?

 

A second throttle might give some control, but it would have to be tied into the computers fuel control just like the injectors are. I don't think it would gain enough to be worth it.

FI increases burn speed, this can actually prevent knock. It's countered by the fact that it increases temperature in the chamber, but there are some neat forces going on there.

 

The old hotrodding days have little to do with the present state of engine technology. 425 hp stock Corvettes getting 25 mpg was unimaginable 50 years ago, magic carbs or not.

 

Not sure why the Second throttle would need to be tied to the fuel delivery since the the amound of vapor being created by the stock throttle is dependent on rpm, the other throttle would just add more fresh air into the mix to mechanically have a good AFR. The injectors would not be working when vapor is being used. As the fuel in the bubbler is dropping a level dependent valve will open that's under pressure from the fuel rail, not really electronically controlled.

 

How is the amount of vapor dependent on rpm? It should be dependent on load/airflow.

Adding a second throttle to prevent it from going rich means the second throttle is controlling fueling. Without tying it to the computer you have just added fuel to the engine in an uncontrolled way.

It really sounds like you want to use the bubbler as a carburetor, but the way you have described it won't work at all. All you'll end up with is an uncontrolled fueling strategy a confused ECU and an engine that will eat itself under any load other than what you set the system up for.

But you did give me an idea for vapor injection.

 

Yes I meant load/airflow. But i figure the higher rpm the higher vacuum (demand for more vapors/air) on the intake equaling more vapors being drawn in. The second throttle is exactly to keep the mixture from going rich, but how would you tie it in with the computer? and why would it be uncontrolled fueling? As an example WOT would allow a lot of vapors into the engine, that would need WOT (or something near that) of the fresh air throttle to control the AFR. Maybe switching the cable throttle to control the amount of vapors and the stock throttle to control the fresh air, maybe a better approach? Also yeah carburetor engines are easier to do this mod.

What are you thinking with vapor injection?

 

At WOT vacuum is the lowest. It doesn't work well for a water bubbler system and it would work even worse for a gas bubbler system.

My idea was to go back to early technology. Have a fuel injector spraying on a hot plate. Possibly a very bad/dangerous idea, but it would allow you to completely vaporize the fuel while maintaining computer control.

 

Seems interesting. I think this guy is crazy for putting his fuel line around the catalytic converter, but the concept could have potential.

 

This guys first method was what I proposed here. I found that white vapor molecular change video and that might be a better way of going about this without using two throttle bodies.

 

This has merit--but more difficult to control, more difficult to design for a high performance engine---but if a secondary system for cruising could be designed in a practical way--then gas mileage would shoot through the roof.

 

That's what I was thinking normal city driving until you flip a switch that turns on the vapor section then bam suck it oil companies

 

Did a bit more homework. Ultimately heating the fuel alone will have negligible effect unless you are cracking the gasoline into lighter components. I added much more heat to the fuel air mixture with steam injection then could have been added by heating the fuel alone and it didn't positively effect fuel economy.

The real gain is from causing a faster burn, and the only ways to do that are high volumes of hydrogen (or another faster burn fuel), much more than can be made with an electrolysis unit efficiently. Or cracking the gasoline into lighter components.

It's a nice idea, but limited in application.

 

Yeah unfortunately annoying physics says that it will take more energy to produce hydrogen then the combustion of hydrogen would provide to repeat the process. That would be over unity.

I still believe that the white vapor method could be utilized when a cruising speed is reached i.e. cruise control on the highway. I mean geet small engines in lawnmowers and generators run off bubbled vapor. Those are at a constant rpm and report equal to better performance.

 

The key to those small engines working is constant load. It wont work well for a car. Even cruising load changes quite a bit. I guess you could supplement some of the fuel from the injectors and let fuel trim sort it out, but you'd be limited to 25% of fuel and it would be a big hassle.

 

Holy thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer batman. Any mechanical engineers here?

 

Anyone tried oxygenated fuel. Like u4

 

Well wasn't everything that worked out great that was once looked at like a bad idea a hassle at first. The hardest thing about engineering is making it simple yet effective. I completely understand what you mean about load and constant work. But there must be some way to make it work! Currently i'm looking into the stoichiometry and conditions needed of this 'golden egg'

 

You are right creating it would take an enormous amount of energy to make hydrogen. He just mentioned releasing stored energy by breaking the water down into hydrogen and oxygen.

This is done with oil all day long and produce a net positive energy.

 

All day long in our engines?

 

Sure, you are releasing the stored energy in the gasoline to turn the engine rather inefficiently, to turn the alternator and produce electricity rather inefficiently, to then run an electrolysis cell VERY inefficiently to put energy into water to make it split into hydrogen and oxygen so that the hydrogen can make the gasoline burn slightly more efficiently. Splitting water takes energy it does not release it.

This misconception is one of the cornerstones of the fake free energy movement. Sorry but whenever I hear the words "Browns Gas" I shudder a little, when I see someone claiming using electricity from the alternator doesn't increase engine load I want to slap their physics teacher, and when I see a clamp on amp meter used to read DC current I pity the fool who knows no better.

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to try wild and crazy things if there is potential, but violating thermodynamics has no potential.

 

Really liking the discussion of alternate fueling methods, however back to the original topic.



I've read through here and other places where this has been discussed, but still can't seem to wrap my head around how these pressures are balanced.

Intake hasn't been compressed yet, but exhaust is expanding. Is there not some leakage? Maybe negligible, but any at all?

 

Intake has been compressed a bit and the exhaust port is opening. The pressures only balance for an instant, the leading plug is actually at the point where the differential pressure reverses.

 

Alright, I gotcha. Anybody know the changes mazda plans to make for the 2017 rx7 engine wise to comply with emissions and mpg?

 

The 2017 RX-7 engine only exists in Narnia.