Rip

I was hoping to find out some information on the claims of fuel vaporizors. These are the devices that are suppose to give up to 200 mpg by turning gasoline into a gaseous state then using it in the engine. Any validity in these claims? Thoughts, coments?


Rip

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

That sound exactly like what a carburetor or fuel injector does. And, you obviously don't get 200 mpg with our present tech.
Think of it this way; If it sounds too good to be true, It probably is. The auto manufactures would be using this tech if it was true to get you to buy a new car. Who ever gave you this information is probably trying to sell you something and part you from you money. Run away. Run away fast.

Razz1

You support Denmark?

max5roadster

I support Denmark! F#@$ those muslim extreme douches!

Rip

Carburetors don't convert gasoline into gaseous form, rather they atomize the fuel ( tiny fuel dropletts ). I'm talking gas form.

Look at these:

Charles Nelson Pogue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301643_pf.html

FuelVapor Technologies

EDZRIDE

iTrader: (1)

This concept has been around for years. The claims are valid but no one has ever brought a device to market. There used to be several "blueprints" around showing you how to build your own but they all proved to be quite dangerous!

xsnipersgox

i just want to put in that though i don't know the details, from an engineering standpoint, this would be the last place to make a 18mpg car go to 200 mpg.. i am sorry it is impossible.

each droplet of fuel only has soo much energy, no matter how much you dice and slice it, it is still that much energy. the biggest waste of energy in Internal combustion engine is heat, most of the energy is lost as heat instead of transfered to mechanical energy. If we can EVER figure out a way to recovered some of those energy, we will increase our MPG dramatically, i think (don't quote me on it) that almost 40% of the energy from fuel is LOST in heat dissapation.

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

actually the largest loss in an internal combustion engine is the compression stroke which accounts for an ideal thermodynamic cycle efficiency (no heatm friction, or any other losses) of around 40%. Heat the accounts for about 40% of the remaining losses which brings the total engine efficiency down to about 30%.

rotarygod

At the end of the day you need a certain air/fuel mixture to run. You can not change this fact. The goal of heating the fuel, in this case gasoline, is to get it to "vaporize". The goal of increasing fuel injection control and pressures (and hence more heat!) is to help "atomization". What's the difference? In the end the goal is the same. It's to get the fuel into as fine a mist or fog as absolutely possible. This means it will mix well with air and hence lose less to clinging onto the sides of the engine. This is an efficiency increase. We know this to work as we've seen fuel injection (among other things of course) increase fuel economy in engines due to better and finer fuel control.

The reality is that you still need to hit a certain a/f ratio to run properly. "Vaporizing" the fuel will not change this fact. If you could make the fuel as fine as you could and mix it as precisely as possible with air, sure you'll get a gain. It won't be 200 mpg unless you are already getting 175 mpg though. This is an area that improvements are being made though. We are constantly seeing fuel pressures get higher and higher with direct injected gasoline engines now in the range of 2500 psi fuel pressure and diesel engines up near 25000 psi! These are improvements over the old carb days.

There is an irony in increasing fuel temperature. It's the fact that the fuel may in fact atomize or vaporize easier at higher temps (to a point) but added heat into the intake system serves to decrease power. Remember the effects of hot vs cold air on power. Definitely don't expect to see anything claim to be able to hit 200 mpg due soley based on fuel vaporization. It won't happen. I'm not saying the 200 mpg engine can't be built. It can and has. It's got no power and moves a very light vehicle but it exists. However there are many things that contribute to this. It isn't only fuel vaporization.

I know people think there's this big conspiracy with automakers about them not wanting you to get good mileage because they are tied into the oil companies. While there are in fact ties and relationships, this big myth is just that. It's a myth. You bet car companies want you to get better mileage. Look at what's happening with automakers as a result of the new increased mileage regulations that are going into effect. Chrysler has cancelled the Hemi option for it's passenger cars. GM has cancelled (or at the very least delayed) the Corvette C7. They are also probably going to stop installing V8's in their passenger cars too leaving them only to their large trucks. Does anyone really think they want to do this? Of course they don't! If they could give you a V8 that had great economy and emissions, they'd do it! It would be an easy sale. The oil companies are tied to many other things. They are quickly approaching a point where they will make huge amounts of money off of technologies that are replacing oil. They will always make money off of energy. It just won't always be oil. It will stay the primary income area for a while though but they expand everyday. They need to and they know it.

Rip

Yes I beleive that a simple modification or even designing an engine to be a 200mpg car is very difficult with many compromises. But I still beleive that good fuel efficeincies can be had with work. Frankly I would like to see for myself the issues and fall backs that are assoicated with heating fuel to obtain a gas like behavior. But even a 50% gain in fuel economy would be worth the thought.

There is in fact many patents that discuss these benefits, but rarely will they talk about the draw backs.

As a note, I was able to find a patent that involved preheating the fuel to a point slightly below the boiling point and the person described they the heat needed to produce gas was after the fuel and air metering. This allowed for control over the FA ratio and the benefit of a more effecient burn.

rotarygod

People have actually been trying this for years. The old way to do it is to wrap some fuel line around your exhaust pipe a few times. I guarantee a 50% gain will never be had from this method. The potential gains from current to a perfect world is in the order of a few percent.

longpath

iTrader: (1)

Increasing fuel temperature to about 400F (flash point is about 440F) was the objective of the late Smokey Yunick's hot vapor design. It could pass the emissions standards of the day without a catalytic convector but was plagued with fuel puddling issues when the engine was shut down because Smokey insisted on using carburetors and the long intake made the engine notoriously cold blooded. It also required extensive work to control hot spots in order to prevent detonation.

For a frame of reference, the Pontiac Fiero prototype, which, at operating temperature had better fuel vaporization than any other combination I've ever heard of or read about, got 51mpg, not 200. The air/fuel mixture was elevated to between 400F and 440F so that the fuel was completely gaseous. The conversion produced about 1.8hp per CI and about twice as much torque as the stock Fiero with "Iron Duke" 4 cylinder engine.