Running on Fumes

[debit.servus]

Project Farm tests running a lawn mower on gasoline vapors:

The lawn mower ran great, and the gas didn't run flat.

The comments have many intelligent mechanics and engineers who's observations line up with my theory. I'm still going to test this for myself, the only test that matters right now is DMV CDL drive test.

 

[unicutie]

good luck to you.

i have done research on this as well and I believe that this is actually true. If you actually do the research you will find many examples of people who have come up with these devices over the years. The most well known example is by a man named pogue, way back in the 30's.

the way our engines work now, the truth is that - no - the fuel is not 100% vaporized by the heat of the engine, not even close, during the ignition stroke. They are purposely designed this way so that the un-combusted fuel vaporizes through the exhaust stroke to cool the engine parts. Much of the gas vapors are then simply blown out the tail pipe. ie, wasted.

If vapor, not just mist, is sent into the engine to be combusted thoroughly, there would be nothing in the exaust fumes but CO2 and water vapor. And anyone talking about the laws of physics is demonstrating their ignorance. If much of the fuel is blasted unburned out of the exhaust, how can you say it is running at peak efficiency, as opposed to near 100% combustion of pure vapor? You are not making any sense. Don't you know that formula cars already run on vaporized methanol?

And to people laughing about the tinfoil hat, grand conspiracy, well. You just demonstrate your ignorance about what's really been going on in the world. Sorry but there really is a big damn conspiracy. bleh!

Anyway, to op, the problems nowadays when it comes to implementing this are hard to overcome. Primarily because the only gasoline you can buy now is not pure gas (ie like white gas, coleman fuel etc), like it was in the olden days, but is cut with many different additives, some of which have the exact purpose of making vaporization more difficult, in order to enhance the internal cooling effect. Also gas is a mixture of different x-anes that burn/vaporize at different temperatures so what you have to do is "crack" the fuel through catalysis, otherwise you'll burn off the lighter stuff and just get left with a ever thickening sludge in your vaporizer. Basically what catalysis entails is heating it up to a very high temperature under pressure to break down the longer chain hydrocarbons into simpler ones. Imagine sending 700 degree gasoline vapors through a pressurized and platinum plated tube ... So you're looking at a complex and highly technical device that is under explosive conditions. Then you have to deal with the computer, 02, maf, etc. sensors.

The sad truth is that these youtube videos of people running their cars with gas cans and five gallon buckets ducted to the intakes, are only the very beginning of the story.

a 100mpg van does sound like a dream though. When it comes to suppressed science though, we shouldn't even be on the ground at all, much less still using internal combustion engines, if human development were to have been allowed to progress unimpeded by the sick and evil powermongering of the psychopaths who are in control of this world.

anyway op, just wanted to chip in so that you don't feel so ganged up on. cheers

 

[debit.servus]

Skip to 2:04 for the main arguement of the video and the one I want to discuss here. He points out that one drop of fuel in a ICE cylinder doesn’t add up to A 15 to 1 air-to-fuel ratio, even at the furthest reach of the compression stroke. The other theory arguement I want to discuss is his theory of “gas is used as a primer to ignite the nitrogen pulled from our atmosphere. “

I yearn to break free from fuel dependence & the grid to travel & explore or at least be far less dependent on them without changing my way of life. If its possible to multiply gas mileage by fumigating gas before it enters the combustion chamber then I’m on a whole new level of energy freedom. I’ll still need gas but less of it.

 

[johnny b]

“gas is used as a primer to ignite the nitrogen pulled from our atmosphere"

The problem with this theory is the simple fact that nitrogen is a very low reactive gas and is not flammable.

In fact it is used as a fire suppressant.

 

[highdesertranger]

yep nitrogen is not flammable. hey debit, I want to see a link that says you can burn nitrogen. highdesertranger

 

[tx2sturgis]

No internal combustion engine runs on liquid fuel alone, there is always a mixture of oxygenated air to fuel at some ratio. In other words, they ALL run on fumes, ALL the time.

Carburetors vaporize fuel and mix it with air, then send it to the combustion cylinder, using engine vacuum to 'pull' the mixture in.

Throttle body injection vaporizes fuel and mixes it with air and sends it along to the combustion cylinder, using engine vacuum to pull the mixture in.

And direct injection mixes fuel and air directly within the cylinder. 

The only thing those videos really show is the exact working principle of a carburetor (albeit some distance away from the intake of the engine). They have, in essence, reverse-engineered a simple venturi carburetor invented almost 200 years ago:

Using engine vacuum, pull air and fuel vapors thru a passageway, and that mixture enters the combustion cylinder. 

But if you lean out the mixture too much, you end up with the problems of lean-burn mentioned earlier so I wont repeat them. 

Lean-burn can work in SOME situations, but when maximum power is required, more fuel will always be needed.

 

[johnny b]

Me thinks you're confusing two different processes.
Carburetors and injectors "Atomize" the liquid fuel into tiny little droplets, which then mix with air to be combusted. 'Aerosol', like a hairspray.

'Vaporization' is the reverse of condensation. The surface of the liquid evaporates its gaseous vapors into the air.

Here's a comparison of injector droplets vs highly atomized droplets...both examples of atomization.
BTW...the carb is what I run on my go-kart...Honda 125 dirt bike engine.
It's a nice carb; no jets to change, easy thumbscrew mid range adjuster, automatic air density compensation via equalized float bowl pressures, ie no jet changes for 'density altitude'.



(use zoom to look closely into carb throat, top left, too see the ultra fine droplets.)

 

[tx2sturgis]

Me thinks you're confusing two different processes.
Carburetors and injectors "Atomize" the liquid fuel into tiny little droplets, which then mix with air to be combusted. 'Aerosol', like a hairspray.

'Vaporization' is the reverse of condensation. The surface of the liquid evaporates its gaseous vapors into the air.

True, but...

For the purposes of creating an air and fuel mixture, and then igniting that mixture, the result (with vaporization or atomization) is the same. You are still adding fuel molecules to air molecules and creating a combustible....'fog' if I can use that term. 

Fuel molecules are suspended in the air, and travel into the combustion chamber. This is what ignites. No normal piston engine 'pours' liquid fuel into the cylinder for ignition. 

Have you seen the damage a hydro-locked (hydraulically locked) engine does to itself? I have.

 

[debit.servus]

yep nitrogen is not flammable.  hey debit,  I want to see a link that says you can burn nitrogen.   highdesertranger

Nitrogen doesn't burn on it own, hence the primer part. Please watch the full video.

He raises a point of the air-to-fuel ratio. How can a drops worth of atomized gas in a cylinder with a volume at least 1000 times greater be a 14.7:1 AFR (in the case of a gasoline ICE)? 14.7:1 AFR at Point of ignition? 

And I looked up "what metric is air to fuel ratio" with the first link in the search results to find out what point in the combustion cycle does the air-fuel ratio apply.

Me thinks you're confusing two different processes.
Carburetors and injectors "Atomize" the liquid fuel into tiny little droplets, which then mix with air to be combusted. 'Aerosol', like a hairspray.

'Vaporization' is the reverse of condensation. The surface of the liquid evaporates its gaseous vapors into the air.

Here's a comparison of injector droplets vs highly atomized droplets...both examples of atomization.
BTW...the carb is what I run on my go-kart...Honda 125 dirt bike engine.
It's a nice carb; no jets to change, easy thumbscrew mid range adjuster, automatic air density compensation via equalized float bowl pressures, ie no jet changes for 'density altitude'.



(use zoom to look closely into carb throat, top left, too see the ultra fine droplets.)

I have no confusion, Gasoline Vaporisation is just what it says on the tin. My theory is atomization is running rich compared to vaporization, where every atom of combustible matter is burned.

Since I passed the DMV CDL drive test, I will test vaporization with small engines before the end of the year.

 

[bigskybob]

Hey DS,glad you got your license.Good luck.

 

[highdesertranger]

that link you posted is for jet engines totally different animal then a piston engine. unless you are planning on converting a van to a turbine. highdesertranger

 

[johnny b]

'Even thermonuclear explosions were unable to get the air burning.'

Although before they set off the first test that was a huge concern...there were fears that we were about to burn off our atmosphere...
that really would have sucked!  

 

[johnny b]

@debit

my 'confusion' post wasn't at you, but to the immediately preceding post.

Congrats on your CDL...good luck...be sure to get ya some Jerry Reed music:



"East bound and Down"

 

[Trebor English]

'Even thermonuclear explosions were unable to get the air burning.'

Although before they set off the first test that was a huge concern...there were fears that we were about to burn off our atmosphere...
that really would have sucked!  

My father told me that they were concerned that the hydrogen in the humidity was the concern.  The hydrogen would fuse to helium just like the sun.  

He never mentioned nitrogen.

 

[captndiet]

Here are link's to Smokey Yunick's Hot-Vapor engine.....

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1009-what-ever-happened-to-smokeys-hot-vapor-engine/

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-1004-pontiac-fiero-hot-air-engine/

https://www.legendarycollectorcars....s-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/

https://www.tamparacing.com/forums/general-car-chat/829096-smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-engine.html

Here is the link to one of the patents on his theory...…

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=4862859.PN.&OS=PN/4862859&RS=PN/4862859

Jeff

 

[ForestRoadSurfers]

How has the vaporware gas engine experiments working? Its been awhile and they cancelled Burning Man this year so hopefully got some forward momentum on the project!

 

[eDJ_]

I notice discussion of lag on acceleration using a vapor generator induction system.  A solution to this may be to make a hybrid of the two systems where the original induction could be switched on and off when needed.

Most of the newer vehicles will have electronic fuel injection (EFI) induction systems and I've noticed
in the Youtube videos of those doing this,  they pull the fuse out of he port for the electric fuel pump.(mounted at the fuel tank at least and possibly a second one near the engine for high pressure to the fuel injectors...such as with extended length Vans.  But generally one fuse operates both of these pumps)

Older vehicles will likely have carburetors with mechanical fuel pumps mounted to the engine.

In the fuel injected vehicles I would pull the fuse and make a pair of jumper wires with crimp on spade connectors at one end and a heavy floor mounted button switch. (similar to a door bell switch only heavier)  Think of the older cars which had the head light high beam switch on the floor to be operated by the left foot.  I would also install an inline fuse carrier to be installed in this circuit that would allow for the proper fuse for electric fuel pump.

The spade connectors would be positioned into the fuse block such that when the button on the floor is depressed, the electric fuel pump would provide fuel to the to the fuel injectors (like in normal operation) and provide power when lacking with the vapor system.

On carbureted engines the mechanical fuel pump would be replaced with a low pressure electric fuel pump and wired similar with the electric power coming from an auxiliary source.  A way of opening the air cleaner chamber via a cable may also be necessary.

Using a universal choke cable to open the door that seals the air cleaner housing when using the vapor induction may be need to be taken into consideration when switching the regular induction on.

These may provide the 15:1 fuel/air ratio on demand when the vehicle is under load or going up a grade.

Spade connectors are common and cheap

[img=250x250]https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-d01...as_assets/cache/image/5/6/a/3/22179.Jpg[/img]
Inline fuse carrier with fuse mounted in it.  Cap covers the fuse when in use.

[img=150x150]https://gpslockbox.com/wp-content/u...pplies/Installation-Harness-600x400.jpg[/img]

In this manner, if you have a rig that is only getting a few miles to the gallon,  this may be a solution.

 

[Scorpion Regent]

Internal combustion engines burn gasoline as efficiently as possible. The 14.7 to 1 air fuel stoichiometric ratio is a given among automotive engineers.  As a diagnostic tech I can tell you it as certain as the sun rising in the East.  Carburetors are terribly inefficient compared to computer controlled fuel injection systems.  Carburetors also have the terrible legacy of vapor lock, which is what happens when the fuel in the float bowl evaporates on a hot day.  So that is another reason why vapor only engines aren't driving lawnmowers, scooters, cars and boats.  Fuel vapor from the fuel tank is captured in a charcoal canister and from there it is metered into the the engines intake.  So yes cars can burn gas vapor, they have been doing it since the late seventies.  How much fuel vapor ?  A pittance and that is all the vapor they can burn.  If Automotive engineers could get as little as 5 extra miles to the gallon out of fumes, they would, but they got all they can.  Maybe it is possible that they could get even more vapor to burn, if a duct ran straight from the fuel tank to the intake, but remember vapor lock?  The risk of fire would make the Ford Pinto look quaint, along with the loss of fuel to evaporation it just won't work any better than burning $100 bills in your fireplace to heat your home. It's a fact of life you can't get more eggs from a chicken by cutting it open.  There is no practical way to burn fuel vapor only.  The Russians have invented a bomb that does it, but no one rides the blast wave and lives. 
 The electrified jar under the hood the Ford sounds like a small scale hydrogen generator to me.  There is no magical gasoline creating machine.  So what was he draining out of the fuel tank?  My guess he was draining off water that had settled to the bottom of the fuel tank or just draining off stale fuel, the car had been sitting a while.  Is it possible to make a car that runs on hydrogen?  Yes it can be done, but it's a lot easier to supplement a metered amount of hydrogen into the intake to burn with air and vaporized gasoline.  Yes it would improve fuel mileage, as would propane and CNG.  
Is it possible to have a cooling system large enough to allow the burning a super lean mix of air and fuel?  Yes, but only until the engine melts down.  Just as it is possible to weld underwater so can you melt down a engine running too lean.  It doesn't matter if you have a entire ocean to dissipate the heat the metal will still liquify form a weld.  No practical cooling system would keep your pistons from melting if your mix is too lean.  
Of course you don't have to take my word for it and I really don't care if you don't.  If you choose to do things with your engine well then have fun, it's your fault if it fails and don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[eDJ_]

In the first link below "Van 'Conversion" there is a link at the top "Bug Out Car" which has a section that addresses vapor induction.  I know of people who are doing it and they generally drive in flat land areas at fairly constant speeds to make it work for them.   One guy even built one for his ZTR Riding Lawn Mower as he has a large piece of property to mow.   Claims he isn't using nearly as much fuel now.  Said he was thinking of finding some large marbles or ball bearings that would fit into the tank to serve as baffles as there is a lot of sloshing when he mows because of the uneven ground.

In my own view, one of these vapor tank inductions is about like having a carburetor with only a "main jet". (no air correction jet)

 

[wayne49]

I have to point out that "vaporware" is an expression that has been widely used for computer technology products that don't exist in reality, similar to unicorns. Used to get angel investors to empty their pockets for promises/lies.