Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Drifty on 02/01/2015 20:36:54
-
Check out this info.
"Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump"
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=1310
the truth about gas and vapor part 1
the truth about gas and vapor part 2
https://www.google.es/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+gas+
https://www.google.es/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+gas+youtube
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/gasolinevapor.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------
RUNNING ON VAPOR
By Bruce Meland,
Editor and Publisher of Electrifying Times
It is an often a misconception that most vehicles burn gasoline vapors in their internal combustion engines. The fact of the matter is, gasoline powered vehicles burn finely divided particles or droplets that are sprayed from the carburetor or fuel injectors, into the engine cylinders.
This is a very wasteful process of converting gasoline or diesel to energy. Maybe 20-30 % efficiency at most. It has been known and demonstrated for 60 or more years that burning gasoline vapors will give easily 5 times the mpg and near zero emissions. Actually if the vapors are heated to the necessary temperature of 450 degrees F, the gasoline vapors are actually fractionalized by catalytic cracking and converted to smaller light molecular hydrocarbons, methane and methanol. In my travels around the world I have been in contact with some very informed inventors, relatives or associates of inventors who have known of many high mileage low emission vapor carburetors. I am sure many of you have heard of the Pogue, Covey, and Fish high mileage carburetors.
-------------------------------------------
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/09/200-mpg-pogue-carburetor/
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
Updated on Monday, May 24, 2010 in Technical Innovations
the 200-mpg carburetor
Pogue Carburetor
Don Garlits, a drag racing legend, poses Aug. 2, 2002, with a 125-miles-per-gallon Pogue Carburetor at Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing, Ocala, Florida.”
photo by Bruce Ackerman, Star Banner, 2002
In Dec. 12, 1936 Canadian Automotive Magazine states that the standard carburetor gets about 25 mpg at only 9% efficiency. Therefore the Pogue carburetor is 72% efficient overall at 200 mpg.
“A carburetor that would allow a car to travel 200 miles on a gallon of gas caused oil stocks to crash when it was announced by its Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue in the 1930s. But the carburetor was never produced in enough volume, and mysteriously, Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry. Ever since, suspicion has lingered that oil companies colluded to bury Pogue’s invention.”
--------------------------------------
http://www.blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_vapo.html
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
There is a website and a CD that have 604 carburetor patents that have been assigned to various companies and never developed. There were 53 inventors who wouldn't sell out. Each of them had fatal "accidents" two to three weeks after refusing to sell their patent(s). I knew four of these inventors personally. The website is http://www.fuelvapors.com/ .
--------------------------------------
https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Pogue%2C+Covey%2C+and+Fish+high+mileage+carburetors
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=941
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982; in Denver, Col.; I designed and built an ugly but functional vapor carb. for my 1967 Dodge Coronet. It used exhaust heat to assist in the vaporizing of the gasoline- which was sprayed into the heat exchanger at the bottom of the device- and the vapor rose through a maze of approx. 25 feet folded back and forth on itself at which it exited into a 2 1/2″ ID hose (radiator hose) which I ran to an adapter on top of my existing carb which I used to start the 318 cubic inch engine. I achieved 87 miles per gallon. The machine shop that I had help me make the contraption told me that they had helped an earlier inventor with a very NICE carb. to adapt it to his auto – with approximately similar results. (Mine only ran me about $500 total w/ all the junk you have to assemble to get it to work.) They warned me not to make it too public, because the other inventor got the notice of some oil people from Texas who came up and gave him an offer to assume his invention. He refused. His home and workshop burned down 2 days later! He moved to parts unknown.
I just thought you might find it interesting to hear from someone who has done this before. My point in the whole thing was; “If I could achieve 80+ mpg with a total of $500 invested- on a ’67 Dodge Coronet 318 V8; what could Chrysler do with the millions they have to invest?”
“In 1933 Charles Nelson Pogue made headlines when he drove a 1932 Ford V8, 200 miles on a gallon of gas during a demonstration conducted by The Ford Motor Company in Winnipeg, Manitoba using his super-carb system.” The Pogue Carb went into production and was sold openly. [317 were sold?] In the opening months of 1936, stock exchange offices and brokers were swamped with orders to dump all oil stock immediately. His invention caused such shock waves through the stock market, that the US and Canadian governments both stepped in and [successfully] applied pressure to stifle him.
“he saw Mr. Pogue in the midst of a bunch of oil company big wigs. He named the wigs, but I forget the names. They were heads of Texaco, Shell, Esso, etc. Some of them had red faces, and Mr. Pogue looked like a trapped rabbit.”
Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry.
[ see photo of Don Garlits with Pogue carb. on "Super Carburetors Hist." page ]
see Charles Pogue Carb.
Ron Brandt is the inventor of the perm-mag motor.
When he was a young man, he invented a 90-mpg carburetor. He was paid a visit by a man from Standard Oil, another man, and two men wearing US Marshal uniforms. They told him that if he ever made another carburetor, they would kill him, his wife, and two young children. He was quickly persuaded that his life wasn’t worth a “damn” carburetor. He happened to think to memorize the badge numbers of the two US Marshals and so had an attorney in Washington, DC check with the US Marshal’s office. They had no record of the two badge numbers.
Tom Ogle, a 24 year old mechanic drove 200 miles in a 1970 351 ci. Ford on 2 gallons of gas. Other mechanics and engineers checked for hidden tanks, none were found. Reporters and a camera crew went with him 100 miles out and back; 200 miles 2 gallons. He claimed from the beginning that he did not know exactly how the system worked, just that it did and he proved it time and again. He had hoped other engineers would help to explain what he was doing. I have seen three different news articles on him and reprinted here for your understanding. One states he turned down $ 25 million from backers that would keep it off the market. He had a hard time getting backers that had integrity. Everybody wanted controlling interest and he knew it was going on the back shelf. Tom resisted and tried to get it on the market. Later he was shot and survived, only four months later he did die of an overdose of darvon and alcohol with no suicide note. Nobody explained what became of his idea. A patent was issued Dec. 11, 1979 # 4,177,779. Four months after his death.
see Tom Ogle Carb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this turns out to be true, the word should be spread far and wide.
-
You can get pretty good mileage out of any reasonably-streamlined car, provided you drive continually at the optimum speed (usually painfully slow), you never have to accelerate up a hill, you don't use airconditioning, and you never use the brakes (brakes turn kinetic energy into heat).
Becoming a moving traffic jam on the interstate might double your range, but I fail to see how a a normal car could reach 200 miles per gallon* just by changing the carburetor. Achieving this on a race car, with continual speed changes and rapid acceleration is even more unlikely.
burning gasoline vapors will give easily 5 times the mpg and near zero emissions
Surprisingly, liquid gasoline does not burn. It is the vapors which burn; because gasoline contains many volatile hydrocarbons, there is always some vapor, even on snowy days. This will catch alight, and heat up the liquid gasoline until it vaporises.
Your car engine is designed to completely vaporise the liquid gasoline or diesel before it ignites - only this process is not so efficient at certain throttle settings.
Pogue carburetor is 72% efficient overall at 200 mpg
Back in the days of steam engines, Carnot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency) worked out the maximum efficiency of a frictionless heat engine (which includes steam, gasoline & diesel). To get 72% efficiency, the engine would need to burn the fuel around 1000C above the air inlet temperature. If you preheat the fuel to 450F (230C), you need to burn it at above 1230C, which is pretty hot. And this already assumes a perfectly efficient carburetor.
if the vapors are heated to the necessary temperature of 450 degrees F, the gasoline vapors are actually .. converted to smaller light molecular hydrocarbons, methane and methanol.
Part of the burning process is to break down the hydrocarbon chains in the vapor into smaller units which then combine with oxygen as part of the burning process.
If you suddenly cooled this reaction (eg with liquid nitrogen), you may find partially-burned hydrocarbons which may include small quantities of ethanol and carbon soot; and even smaller quantities of single carbon molecules like methanol and methane - but there are simply not enough hydrogen atoms in octane to produce much methanol or methane.
It's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg
Frankly, I don't see how a non-electric vehicle could achieve anywhere near 200mpg in stop/start city driving.
*Bear in mind that US gallons are smaller than UK gallons. Isn't Imperialism wonderful?
-
It's not even theoretically possible that a carburettor, without changing your driving, would give you that range. Engines are about 20% efficient, and they would need to be about 100% efficient to get that range; but Carnot says no.
Still, internal combustion engined cars can achieve thousands of miles of range, but only at very average low speeds (like 15 mph) with special tyres, note that the engine isn't actually running most of the time, they start it, accelerate and then shut it down and coast.
-
It is a misnomer that the internal combustion engine is only 25% efficient large Diesel engines such as used in ferries and British aircraft carriers can achieve55%.
-
Assume we are using a conventional liquid fuel with an energy density of about 50 MJ/kg, roughly 200 MJ/gallon.
Smooth running at 50 kph, a small 4-seat car requires about 8 kW to overcome drag and friction, so to cover 200 miles (320 km) you need to deliver 8 kW for 320/50 = 6.4 hours = 23040 seconds, a total consumption of 184 MJ.
So the answer is yes, it is theoretically possible if we can reduce the drag coefficient below 0.1 - the goal for a glider, and probably achievable for a 4-seat car - and thus get the running power down to about 4 kW at a sensible speed.
Right now I'm in the process of buying a single-seat aeroplane that cruises at 65 mpg and 185 kph, and aero engines are "intentionally inefficient" (overengineered - reliability is more important than economy) so I don't see any technical barrier to the 200 mpg car, but the answer lies in weight and aerodynamics, not the carburettor (the plane uses an injected Wankel, running on road gasoline).
-
Smooth running for 320Km at 50 KPH would be a pipe dream in the UK if you could find an early morning weekend near empty highway you could not legally drive that slow.
I recall a figure of 17 BHP being quoted for a Volkswagen beetle at 100Kph so 50 KPH should only need about 2 BHP for 50KPH and a figure of 70MPG being quoted for this speed and the 34BHP engine would be running very un efficiently at this output
-
It is a misnomer that the internal combustion engine is only 25% efficient large Diesel engines such as used in ferries and British aircraft carriers can achieve55%.
Not for a petrol engine, ~20% is not so atypical.
Petrol engines can't give you high compression ratios; you get preignition.
Diesel engines use much higher temperatures and pressures in the combustion process and can reach ~45-55% or so efficiency, that's why you get much better mpg with them.
-
Smooth running for 320Km at 50 KPH would be a pipe dream in the UK if you could find an early morning weekend near empty highway you could not legally drive that slow.
On the contrary, you could be liable to prosecution for speeding! The speed limit in most built-up areas is 48.2 kph (30 mph).
I recall a figure of 17 BHP being quoted for a Volkswagen beetle at 100Kph so 50 KPH should only need about 2 BHP for 50KPH and a figure of 70MPG being quoted for this speed and the 34BHP engine would be running very un efficiently at this output
OK, so perhaps we can get away with 1.5 kW at a reasonable speed, so 200 mpg is entirely feasible. I think the trick is to use a diesel hybrid, with say a 3 kW diesel generator charging a small battery that is used for acceleration only.
-
Hybrids don't get mpgs as high as that.
With electric hybrids, you lose energy in the generator, you lose energy in the battery and you lose energy in the motors.
No, the most efficient form of energy storage is simply kinetic energy.
You run your diesel engine, accelerate up to a speed, not too fast, to avoid windage losses, say 30 mph, switch off the engine to avoid engine losses, and coast down to say 10 mph. Then switch the engine back on, and do it again.
If you do it right the biggest losses are in rolling friction, and it is independent of speed.
-
You people say one thing and the info says another.
In Dec. 12, 1936 Canadian Automotive Magazine states that the standard carburetor gets about 25 mpg at only 9% efficiency. Therefore the Pogue carburetor is 72% efficient overall at 200 mpg.
How is a layman supposed to know who to believe?
-
Well, I find snopes to be very reliable:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
-
In Dec. 12, 1936 Canadian Automotive Magazine states that the standard carburetor gets about 25 mpg at only 9% efficiency. Therefore the Pogue carburetor is 72% efficient overall at 200 mpg.
You can't just multiply mpg to recalculate efficiency. Miles per gallon depends on engine efficiency as well as the mass and aerodynamics of the car, the speed(s) at which the mpg is calculated for and any number of other factors.
A little 50cc motor scooter might be able to get more than 300 miles per gallon at a constant speed of 10 mph, but that doesn't mean its carburetor would be more than 100% efficient.
-
Hybrids don't get mpgs as high as that.
My old 1982 Pickup will give most modern Hybrids a run for the money for fuel efficiency.
Ok, it is a rather small pickup with a Diesel. But, one doesn't necessarily need a "hybrid" to get good fuel efficiency.
People have been doing "hyper-mileage" contests for years. For example, the Shell Eco-Marathon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-marathon) where a stripped down Fiat 600 got 244 mpg in 1968, and an Opel got 376 mpg in 1973.
A well-tuned vehicle with all the excess weight removed, and simplified transmission could possibly get astounding fuel efficiency going about 10 MPH on the flat.
-
Sure, I already made that point, but they don't get that 200+ mpg at 56 mph. It's essentially impossible, the air resistance is too much.
If the question is: can I simply change my carburettor and get 200mpg, then the answer is a resounding no.
Note that diesels don't even HAVE a carburettor.
-
Definition of a carburettor: a device designed to provide the wrong fuel/air mixture at any speed. Which is why all sensible cars use fuel injection.
-
Definition of a carburettor: a device designed to provide the wrong fuel/air mixture at any speed. Which is why all sensible cars use fuel injection.
[xx(]
I did see an intake manifold design once coupled to an O2 sensor that would inject air under the carburetor to adjust for the proper fuel/air mixture. It seemed like a pretty ingenious system, designed to retro-fit onto an old classic vehicle to clean up the emissions, but probably also aid with efficiency.
However, I don't think it caused a jump in fuel efficiency from 40 mpg to 80 mpg. Any efficiency changes would have been minimal.
-
Well, I find snopes to be very reliable:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
How do you know that the people who wrote that weren't paid sophists?
Whenever there's a big controversy, there are groups of experts on both sides of it. Look at the global warming controversy. There are two groups of scientists with opposing views.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an+inconvenient+truth+full+movie
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+great+swindle+global+warming
The same is true of the depleted uranium controversy.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
https://www.google.es/search?q=depleted%20uranium&tbs=vid:1&gws_rd=ssl
The same is true of the GM food contoversy.
http://www.projectcensored.org/11-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food-confirmed/
I think it's pretty clear that one group of scientists is being sincere and the other group is consciously lying.
Here's a scientist who says that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.
(00:16 time mark)
Here's another case of official mainstream journals publishing untrue information.
(1:36:40 time mark)
In an environment such as this, just pointing to another site that says the opposite isn't enough to convince a thinking person. We have to know which party is telling the truth as it seems easy for governments and big corporations to find scientists willing to lie.
-
Well, I find snopes to be very reliable:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
How do you know that the people who wrote that weren't paid sophists?
I don't particularly care if they are, I note that they come up with a well reasoned argument, they have references, which I'm sure I could check, and they consistently convince me.
I make no claims that they are always right, but in this case, and virtually every other case I've looked at, I believe them.
I'm also technically skilled with cars, I've done mechanics, and I do work as a professional engineer (not a mechanic). I'm sure that no carburettor could ever work so as to give 200mpg in normal use.
And I have done things like get a petrol car- which normally gets about 40 mpg; I managed to get it up to 55 mpg on a drive of over 50 miles, and I have had it indicating over 70 mpg over short distances. Getting 200 mpg is basically impossible with a petrol car at normal speeds, but can definitely be done at low speeds (~15 mph).
-
I don't particularly care if they are, I note that they come up with a well reasoned argument, they have references, which I'm sure I could check, and they consistently convince me.
I make no claims that they are always right, but in this case, and virtually every other case I've looked at, I believe them.
I'm also technically skilled with cars, I've done mechanics, and I do work as a professional engineer (not a mechanic). I'm sure that no carburettor could ever work so as to give 200mpg in normal use.
And I have done things like get a petrol car- which normally gets about 40 mpg; I managed to get it up to 55 mpg on a drive of over 50 miles, and I have had it indicating over 70 mpg over short distances. Getting 200 mpg is basically impossible with a petrol car at normal speeds, but can definitely be done at low speeds (~15 mph).
You claim to be an expert but these people seem to be experts too.
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/09/200-mpg-pogue-carburetor/
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 years ago Charles Nelson Pogue, invented the 200-mpg carburetor
September 1953
” A lot of them said they were inventors and wanted to buy stock, wanted information, wanted controlling interests. I later found out most were from oil companies.”
“Were you ever threatened, Mr. Pogue?”
“Yes, several times.”
“Was your workshop broken into and models stolen?”
“Several times.”
“Were you ever the victim of political pressure?”
“What do you think? … I had pressure from both Canadian and American politicians. One of your fellows, a big shot in Washington now, was one of them.”
In the opening months of 1936, stock exchange offices and brokers were swamped with orders to dump all oil stock immediately.
Pogue and his carburetor have become world-wide legend
This is the year the last of the Pogue patents run out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Preview 2002 issue of Electrifying Times featured an article about gasoline vapor injection systems for automobiles that allow 100-200 mpg. These high mileage systems have been around for 50 years but the technology has been suppressed and kept secret. Vapor injection patents have been bought out by major auto and oil companies. A revived emergence of this technology is surfacing, due to limited oil supplies resulting in increased gas prices. The computer age has allowed refined vapor injection technology to reach new levels. 150 mpg vapor injection prototype systems are secretly being installed in various vehicles around the US. Here is an excerpt of the article. For the full story, send away for the Preview 2002 back issue of Electrifying Times and receive the most comprehensive story ever printed on the history of vapor injection systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_vapo.html
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Nelson Pogue invented a carburetor that vaporized gasonline, instead of nebulizing it into tiny drops, thus dramatically increasing mileage per gallon of gasoline used. Like so many other inventions, that carburetor did not fit in with the business plans of those in the auto and oil industries. It was bought and shelved, leaving enthusiasts to try and make their own ... if they had the specialized knowledge and tools to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double-Mixing Carburetor Increases Power and Mileage
A NEW carburetor that makes mileage of 200 miles per gallon a possibility has been invented by a Winnipeg, Can., engineer. It has been tested and examined by several automotive engineers who claim it is entirely feasible in its action.
C.N. Pogue, the inventor, supplies his carburetor with two mixing chambers instead of one. The gasoline is vaporized in the primary chamber and before being used is sent through another mixing chamber. Here, since it is vapor that burns and not liquid gasoline, the gasoline is further vaporized into a still finer mixture. This insures more power and mileage from usual quantity of liquid gasoline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this video a carburetor isn't even needed.
This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline.
I might as well just say it. I doubt that you're telling the truth.
-
This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline.
You can put that in your car if you wish.
In the film, there is no evidence of the vehicle driving. It is barely running, and the engine seems to die every time he lets off of the accelerator. And, it isn't demonstrating any particular fuel efficiency (how do you get MPG from a parked car?)
One doesn't necessarily have to have a functioning device for a patent, and some patents seem to be issued on wishful thinking. For example there are several 100% magnet motor patents which describe non-functional devices.
There may be some simple things that one could do to improve fuel efficiency that may not be commercially viable. For example, if one runs an engine super-lean, one may decrease fuel consumption slightly (while increasing NOx production), and decreasing the life expectancy of the engine, perhaps severely. There is also a lot of debate about the efficiency of water injection, but some people swear by its benefits in fuel efficiency and engine cleanliness.
Over the last 30 or 40 years, there have been huge improvements in cleaner burning engines, more reliable engines, and fuel efficiency increases (perhaps offset by more use of stuff like AC, exhaust back pressure, and heavier and safer cars).
Putting a 1960's engine design into a modern car would be a huge step backwards.
-
I don't particularly care if they are, I note that they come up with a well reasoned argument, they have references, which I'm sure I could check, and they consistently convince me.
I make no claims that they are always right, but in this case, and virtually every other case I've looked at, I believe them.
I'm also technically skilled with cars, I've done mechanics, and I do work as a professional engineer (not a mechanic). I'm sure that no carburettor could ever work so as to give 200mpg in normal use.
And I have done things like get a petrol car- which normally gets about 40 mpg; I managed to get it up to 55 mpg on a drive of over 50 miles, and I have had it indicating over 70 mpg over short distances. Getting 200 mpg is basically impossible with a petrol car at normal speeds, but can definitely be done at low speeds (~15 mph).
You claim to be an expert but these people seem to be experts too.
I'm not an expert, but neither are those people. Your an expert if many other people say you are. Most people don't consider them to be experts.
I might as well just say it. I doubt that you're telling the truth.
LOL! If I could make a 200mpg carburettor I would just hugging do it already and release the plans online anonymously, and then others would try it and it would work and word would spread. It's just not possible, wind resistance alone stops that.
Conspiracies only work if they're kept small, publishing them across the whole world would stop that.
Nothing I have ever seen suggests that 200mpg carbs can be made, and people regularly engage in distance races; if a 200 mpg carb existed they WOULD be using it.
With all due respect, you seem rather gullible that you think that 200 mpg carbs can be made.
If you really think so, go right ahead.
-
With all due respect, you seem rather gullible that you think that 200 mpg carbs can be made.
Here's what I said in post #1.
If this turns out to be true, the word should be spread far and wide.
You're misrepresenting my position. That's what professional sophists on the internet do.
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html
I'm just a layman so I can't opine but when I read stuff like this...
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=1310
...I'm not going to simply rule it out because some guy on the internet says it's bunk. I'm still sitting on the fence.
Let's hear your analysis of the above info.
-
We already gave you the analysis and referred you to other people's analyses that indicate that these claims are extremely likely to be fraudulent; the 200mpg carb idea doesn't work, to get a much more efficient engine you need a higher compression ratio and combustion temperature and lower exhaust temperature; these things cannot be manipulated by a carburettor in a meaningful way to achieve this.
To improve range you can also improve the car in other respects, lower frontal cross-section, improved Cd factor, more efficient tyres.
Finally you can drive at much slower speeds, at around 15 mph you can get thousands of miles range.
With these, many caveats, the essential thrust of the topic: "It's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg" is false.
-
We already gave you the analysis and referred you to other people's analyses that indicate that these claims are extremely likely to be fraudulent; the 200mpg carb idea doesn't work, to get a much more efficient engine you need a higher compression ratio and combustion temperature and lower exhaust temperature; these things cannot be manipulated by a carburettor in a meaningful way to achieve this.
If I'm not mistaken, in these videos the vehicles have fuel injection systems with the fuel pumps disconnected and there's no carburetor.
200+ MPG Gasoline Vaporizer Project Original Design (Driving On Only Gasoline Vapor)
2004 dodge ram 1500 running on fuel vapors
Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump
Running a Chevy 350 without the fuel pump. (On vapors)
It seems that it's possible to do this without a carburetor.
-
There's not necessarily any problem in theory about running a car on petrol vapours. It's just that you can't make a 200mpg car that way- not one that drives and looks like an ordinary car.
-
There's not necessarily any problem in theory about running a car on petrol vapours. It's just that you can't make a 200mpg car that way- not one that drives and looks like an ordinary car.
After having watched this video...
200+ MPG Gasoline Vaporizer Project Original Design (Driving On Only Gasoline Vapor)
...I think the idea is well worth pursuing. The performance of the car in the above video doesn't doesn't look that different from an ordinary car. Couldn't some engineers make the necessary improvements to get it up to par?
-
A quick poke in the eye for "electric is green" believers.
I've just looked at the manufacturers' CO2 per km figures for the G-whizz (2 seat all-electric, 50 mph, 48 mile range) and Citroen Cactus (4 seat diesel, 90 mph, 500 mile range). The "all electric" runs at 62 g/km (emitted at the power station), the Cactus at 82. No real contest, especially on a bumpy road.
-
That's a diesel though, and they're horribly polluting as France is finding out; diesel kills people, heart disease is the least of it. 29000 people per year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10190942/Why-is-killer-diesel-still-poisoning-our-air.html
And note the 62g/km assumes a fossil fuelled power station, if you use wind power or solar or nuclear, it's not far from 0g/km.
They're still pretty expensive but electric cars are getting cheaper and more practical all the time as the production ramps up; they're likely to be fully practical in a couple of years or so.
-
That's a diesel though, and they're horribly polluting as France is finding out; diesel kills people, heart disease is the least of it. 29000 people per year
A very interesting statistic.
CVD is also one of the main causes of death in people under 75 in the UK. 26 per cent of premature deaths in men and 18 per cent of premature deaths in women were from CVD in 2011. In 2011 over 42,000 people under 75 died from CVD.
So diesel fumes attack more men than women? Or have we forgotten something, say, for instance, smoking.
There's little point in analysing the stats for over-75's who will have received most of their exposure to pollutants in the bad old days of domestic coal burning. But the rapid rise in diesel car use, from almost zero 20 years ago to 30% today, should correlate nicely with the under-75 stats if the opening statement is true. Does it?
As for wind or solar power, if you covered the entire British Isles with windmills or solar panels, you wouldn't generate enough electricity to run a million cars, never mind the 20 million we have now.
-
Air pollution is produced from a wide variety of sources, coal, cooking, diesel, petrol and they're all going to be varying over time, particularly coal which is being phased out.
It would probably be difficult to disentangle one variable like that from the mix.
Paris is a particularly bad case, they switched to diesel vehicles, but diesel produces 4 times the Nox emissions compared to petrol, so they're going to ban diesel vehicles in Paris by 2020:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26678-paris-says-non-to-diesel-in-antipollution-push.html#.VLFCL8kl8hk
-
Start watching this video at the 2:00 time mark.
Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6
If a gas engine can run on wood smoke, its running on gas fumes doesn't seem that implausible.
-
Most internal combustion engines run on gas, either vaporised hydrocarbons or pure hydrogen. The finer the spray of injected diesel fuel, i.e. the closer it is to a gas, the sharper the combustion.
"Wood smoke" is mostly fine carbon and hydrocarbons so potentially weakly combustible, but "producer gas" (principally carbon monoxide) and "water gas" (carbon dioxide and hydrogen), made from coal, charcoal and wood, formed the basis of "town gas" until the 1960s and many UK buses and taxis carried gas bags during WWII.
-
As for wind or solar power, if you covered the entire British Isles with windmills or solar panels, you wouldn't generate enough electricity to run a million cars, never mind the 20 million we have now.
This is actually incorrect.
If you go here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_33.shtml
you find that they work it out as 8kW per person, just for wind. That's enormously more than the amount you need for electric cars.
However, they then use the faulty argument that you couldn't cover the whole island with wind mills, but you pretty much could, 10% is a very conservative number, and there's also off-shore wind as well, where you definitely can.
edit fwiw: Average mileage in the UK is currently about 8000 miles per year. Electric cars get about 250 Wh to the mile. So that's 2000kWh per year, which would be 10 days at 8kW for the owner (and a lot of people don't have cars).
edit2: MacKay uses 40kWh/d for an electric car. This is far, far too high. He got it from the energy in the petrol to go the average distance, but electric cars are about 5 times more efficient. The average mileage is about 20 miles per day, but that's only about 5 kWh.
-
This is the Volkswagen XL1. I first encountered it while working on the Queens Coronation Festival a couple of years ago.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.caranddriver.com%2Fimages%2F13q1%2F494260%2F2014-volkswagen-xl1-photos-and-info-news-car-and-driver-photo-502280-s-429x262.jpg&hash=d4d590e4f6b6d8b178407366be25cbfd)
It is claimed to be capable of 261 miles per gallon. See this report (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-volkswagen-xl1-photos-and-info-news)
-
As for wind or solar power, if you covered the entire British Isles with windmills or solar panels, you wouldn't generate enough electricity to run a million cars, never mind the 20 million we have now.
This is actually incorrect.
If you go here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_33.shtml
you find that they work it out as 8kW per person, just for wind. That's enormously more than the amount you need for electric cars.
Cars are not the problem if you average all the consumption. Present UK total energy usage is about 8 kW per capita averaged over a year. During peak traffic times we have at least 10,000,000 vehicles on the road, each running at around 20 kW, i.e. something close to 4 kW per capita in addition to all the background domestic and industrial use.
-
Electric cars use about a quarter of the energy to do the same thing as fossil cars. Mr. Carnot says that no heat engine can compete with a battery and electric motor for efficiency; and using wind turbines (and some PV) for powering them is a really excellent combo.
-
Amazing! Different laws of physics apply to electric cars! Despite being heavier than their fossil-fuelled equivalents, they use less energy to move! If this were true, we'd all be flying electric aeroplanes. After all, the electric motor predates the gasoline engine by about 40 years.
The power rating of an internal combustion engine is the power it delivers, not the theoretical heat of combustion of the fuel. So a 10 kW engine, whether electric or gasoline, delivers 10 kW.
-
Yes, they absolutely are hugely more efficient, and there's no new physics.
It's easy to forget just how awfully inefficient internal combustion engines are in this context.
To make a petrol car produce 10kW, you have burn about 50kW-worth of petrol; the 10kW is useful mechanical motion, but the other 40kW is waste heat that comes out of the exhaust pipe and radiator.
Electric cars are more like 80% efficient; batteries and electric motors are very efficient. Does this really surprise you?
Rolling friction isn't that big anyway, the extra weight mostly slows acceleration a bit, but a lot of the energy is recouped via regenerative braking; so the penalty is much less than you'd think.
-
But if you are going to keep up with traffic, you need to deliver 20 kW to the wheels, regardless of the prime mover.
It all depends on what you consider to be the prime mover. The transmission of a conventional car is about 80% efficient, so the question is whether you generate your 20 kW on the spot by burning 40 kW of diesel, or at some remote location by burning 50 kW of coal to charge your battery. The advantage of burning it on the spot is that you can use the "waste" heat to keep the cabin warm and defrost the windows (up to 10 kW is handy in a big saloon).
My ideal would be a constant-speed gas turbine driving a polyphase electronic transmission - a 21st century evolution of the diesel-electric locomotive, with a much better power/weight ratio than even a piston engine.
-
Yes, you need 10-20kW to keep up with traffic, but to do that, an electric car only needs ~13-25kW of electricity. A diesel car needs 20-40kW of energy or more.
I consider wind power to be a prime mover.
The claim you made was that it wasn't possible to power all cars off wind, but because wind directly produces electricity and because electric cars are, even compared to diesel cars, super-efficient, then it can do this, and when you do this, the net energy requirement of the UK goes down.
The energy to heat the car and its windows is actually pretty small, we're talking about (say) a kilowatt, peak, and the latest cars use air source heat pumps to reduce that by a factor of up to 3.
-
As I write, the wind is not blowing, and probably won't get above 5 mph peak, 1 mph average, for the next two days. So I need a car with, say, sufficient battery capacity to last 5 days at 300 miles/day.
The Tesla seems the best electric car for my purposes - my weekday mileage is often 300/day, mostly motorway.
No chance of 5-day capacity, so I'll settle for 1 day. Recharging time is 13 hours, assuming I can find a 7.4 kW socket. So instead of using the car to help me do my job, I have to plan my life around the car and accept the fact that there may be many days when I can't use it. Then when the wind does blow, we will need another 15 GW (25%) of installed generating and distribution capacity to charge up everyone's vehicle. I don't think this makes economic sense.
-
Really? No wind? What country are you living in? Because it's not the UK:
http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
2.71 GW right now, and it's been well over 5 GW all night.
I'm not designing a car for you; and note that you perfectly well can do 300 miles in a Nissan leaf, you would need to do two fast charges; they take about 20 minutes each at a fast charger, which are found on motorways. A 300 mile journey is going to take hours anyway, so big deal, stop and have a sandwich!
You also have bizarre ideas how the electrical grid works. Does it ever occur to you that having wind forecasts that predicts peaks and troughs of wind power allows the fleet of cars to even the grid out very well? So far from the cars being a drain on the grid, they help the grid work more efficiently.
-
That turns my car from a convenient form of transport for me, into a social duty to keep down the cost of electricity.
Just looked at the Leaf specification. Motorway driving at 55 mph will give me about 75 miles between charges if I use the heater or aircon, so my 300 mile day will take 5.5 hours of driving and require 4 charges at 20 minutes if I can plan the journey to suit the availability of charging points. That's about 7 hours' driving. No mention of cruising range at 70 mph.
With a full tank, my diesel Mondeo can do it twice at 70 mph without stopping to fill up (5 minutes) in just 8.5 hours.
-
The leaf is a better car, it's quieter, easier to drive, mostly faster, more economical and cheaper to run. And it's already fully charged each day when you get into it, so it's only 3 charges at most. And you don't necessarily have the aircon or heater on; and the car is already at the right temperature when you get in because you can set it to do that.
And presumably you don't do 300 miles every day or every week. If you did you would be better off with a plug-in hybrid.
-
Alas, many work days involve 200 miles or more, and I like to spend some time actually working instead of driving, so I need a car that can cruise for a couple of hundred miles at 70 mph, which, according to the manufacturer, the Leaf won't. Even if time was immaterial, I worry about range after discovering, the hard way, that you can drive from Inverness to Perth (110 miles) on a Sunday without passing an open garage!
However warm the car is when you get in it, on a cold day it will lose about 3 kW of heat continuously (it's the 70 mph, -4 deg C draught and the fact that it is made of thin steel and glass that causes the trouble) so you need a heater for any trip longer than 20 minutes or so if you are going to see out of the windows. Waste heat from a combustion engine will do nicely, and not having to economise on headlamp power is a comfort at night (though LED headlamps make a lot of sense - I'll insist on them for my next car).
I seriously considered using an electric car for short journeys but it turned out that even a commute from Oxford to London was beyond the safe range of anything affordable.
Just looking back at "UK Gridwatch" I note that on the coldest days in February, when total demand was at its highest, the contribution of wind power was.....zero (or certainly less than 0.2 GW - the graph is a bit small). Hardly surprising since prolonged cold weather in the UK is caused by a stable anticyclone. And hardly a great advert for the 12 GW of installed turbine capacity. Indeed over the past 12 months, wind power has never exceeded 50% of the nominal installed capacity and generally seems to be running at less than 15%. Part of the problem is the variation in wind speed across the country: when I wrote earlier that the wind here (in East Anglia) was temporarily calm, it was blowing a gale off northern Scotland but the forecast wind distribution was quite the reverse, so you can have a situation where some turbines are feathered to prevent damage whilst others, feeding into the same national grid, are in a dead calm. Thus the "economy" of an electric car is actually due to the absurd subsidy that Joe Taxpayer is providing to the wind farms, compared with the absurd tax levied on road fuel.
Anyway, to return briefly to the OP, I now note that at a steady-ish 70 mph my 2-ton estate car returns 54 mpg even with aircon, so the 200 mpg car is definitely feasible if you get the weight and aerodynamics right. A couple of years ago an entirely conventional 2-seat aeroplane met the challenge of 100 mpg at 100 mph for 2 hours. Way better than any electric car.
-
I just woke up with another sad thought about electric cars. Suppose everyone used them.
The recharge time is about 10 minutes per 30 miles. Motorway service stations are about 30 miles apart. A gasoline car need only refuel for 5 minutes at every 10th station, and a diesel at every 20th, but an electric will need to stop at every second station for 20 minutes.
So when you arrive at your service station to recharge your electric car, there will be 5 or 10 times as many cars ahead of you queuing for the "pumps", and each one taking four times as long as a liquid-fuelled car to recharge. Not a problem in the middle of the night, but at peak times a 60 mile journey will consist of 1 hour's driving and at least 1.5 hours queuing to recharge en route, giving an effective cruising speed of 24 mph - you might as well use a bicycle or a horse. Unless, of course, the service stations are 10 to 20 times as big as they are now - with all the global-warming concrete that entails.
Perhaps the solution is to install charging points every mile along the hard shoulder: as electric cars are distinctly more reliable than i.c. vehicles, you won't need it for breakdowns any more.
-
No.
You're thinking 'filling station', a filling station is an expensive piece of kit that handles toxic, flammable, potentially explosive materials.
An electric charging point is just a parking spot next to a charger. The chargers only cost a few thousand, and they're not particularly dangerous. Electricity is safer than petroleum.
So you can afford to have many, many more of them. And you can add more at any time, they're relatively easy to retrofit.
And the charging spot makes money in two ways simultaneously, while you're using it, you're usually buying food and coffee, and it *makes* money from selling electricity to you.
-
So how many charging points will there be for each coffee shop?
If each charging point delivers 150AH in 20 minutes, the current draw per station is 450 amps. It cost me £50,000 to install a 2 x 400 amp transformer in a clinic in London, where the 11 kV supply was available under the adjacent road.* Adding one or two charging points to an existing motorway service station is not a problem as they probably have a 1000A incoming supply, but it looks to me as though you will need a minimum of 50 sockets at each station to prevent road rage - or people dying of hypothermia or heatstroke as they queue for the chargers. Plus a fair bit of re-education for the poor travellers who have to stop for at least 20 minutes every 60 miles (assuming there is nobody ahead of them in the queue for the socket).
My colleagues charge £70 per hour for travel. If four of us have to attend an event 60 miles away, that's £280 on top of the customer's bill. But if we use an electric car, the travel cost doubles because we have to drive more slowly** and hang around waiting for the beast to recharge before we can finish the journey. I don't see much customer satisfaction there.
"Electricity is safer than petroleum" should be written above every electric chair. And, since the cars use lithium batteries, on every Boeiing Dreamliner that catches fire.
Rather like solar panels on the roof, and indeed wind power systems, the electric car favours the early adopter but will be a disaster if it becomes popular.
*And for what it's worth, the mains power supply is now so poorly specified and unreliable that I'm installing diesel generators in new clinics - I can't afford the downtime and damage caused by voltage drops, frequency fluctuations and total outages of the grid. So here's a neat scenario: a 2-hour blackout of one section of the M6. Right now, no problem: most people drive on to the next service station and only those in really desperate straits (maybe one car in 50) wait until the power comes back, whereupon they refuel in a couple of minutes and the jam clears. But with electric cars, half of all the traffic must stop at each station because they can't possibly reach the next one. Pandebloodymonium.
** Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed, whatever the drag coefficient of the vehicle. That's why electric car manufacturers specify range at 55 mph (US speed limit) and not 70.
-
You might want to ask yourself whether infrastructure that lasts indefinitely and creates two income streams is likely to be a bad investment; we're talking about reasonably large numbers of chargers/parking spaces costing perhaps a sizeable fraction of a million in front of a retail property that costs far more than that and that attracts customers to the store.
-
But the primary function of a car is to get from A to C without having to change horses at B1, B2, B3...
I do operate some properties in retail/professional areas. Normal storefront is supplied with about 10 amps per foot of frontage, so I might be able to supply one fast-charge parking space in front of a 20 foot shop without having to rewire the entire street, but if my neighbours do the same, we will need to double the supply capacity of the street. This cannot be done in London or Birmingham - there isn't sufficient incoming feeder capacity - and is probably impracticable in every other city. Which is a pity, because these are exactly the locations where people do want to stop for an hour or so. And just to make things awkward, most city councils would prefer people not to use cars for short journeys.
OK, let's look at motorways. You implement your plan for universal electric car use, the average journey speed is halved, and the footfall at each service station is quadrupled. But what is that footfall going to do? Eat and drink for 20 minutes every hour? You'll have a national obesity crisis on your hands! Buy mobile phones, camping chairs, and all the other crap they sell in such places? Or just run around screaming with frustration and smacking their equally frustrated children?
3 am and your teenage daughter calls: "Dad, I'm somewhere in the Yorkshire Moors and my battery is flat". "No problem, dear, I've got a gallon of electricity in the shed...."
Sorry, my friend, but after a million miles and four children, I'll stick with diesel. Biodiesel or wind-powered hydrocarbon synthesis would be nice, but the essence remains: any practical vehicle must be quicker than a horse over 100 miles and have a range of at least twice the human bladder capacity.
-
Electric cars have the amazing innovation, found 'nowhere else', called 'Satellite Navigation System' which tells you where you are and car also tells you how far you can go before recharging. It's actually pretty hard to run out.
And the fast chargers only need to be on the motorways, you don't need them in the inner cities much at all. Inner cities usually use 'level 2' chargers; which are up to 19 kW but can just be 13 amps at 240 volts. A 7kW charger gives you a mile every 2 minutes, so if you go to the store for half an hour you get 15 miles of range, which is plenty for going to the store.
In other words, virtually every single thing you've said in this thread is flat wrong.
Electric cars are literally better cars than your god-awful stone-age diesel, and mostly easier to use. Small cars like the Nissan Leaf are not very good for long distances, but they can do them, they're just somewhat slower. Most people that do frequent long distance driving would be better off with a plug-hybrid; you literally can get 200 mpg range with a plug-in hybrid (mpge is not 200 though!)
-
Practically all cars have a gadget that tells you how much fuel you have left, and most nowadays will tell you where you are. But still, even after 100 years of adaptation, the most common callout for the rescue services is "out of fuel". The ability to quickly get fuel into the car anywhere, any time, is extremely useful.
No fast chargers in town? So I drive from London to Oxford but I can't go directly to my client's premises because I won't be able to leave the city: I have to stop at a motorway service station just before I get there. But annoyingly, they don't put motorway service stations close to the cities - that wouldn't be sensible, would it?
Everything you have said about electric cars is indeed true, which is why I don't have one. I buy machines to make my life easier, not more complicated.
The plug-in hybrid is an unnecessary branch on the evolutionary tree. I guess it's a response to the California zero-emissions requirement and an anticipation of similar legislation in European cities, but a large battery pack is an encumbrance - better to use buses and taxis in town anyway. If you run a diesel engine or preferably a gas turbine at constant speed and use an infinitely-variable electric transmission to couple it to the wheels, you can end up with an extremely efficient, fast, long range vehicle. There is already an aeroplane flying with just this system: a fuselage-mounted turbine/generator feeding electric motors driving propellors on the wings.
-
There certainly are fast chargers in London, but you don't need many of them.
The plug-in hybrid is an unnecessary branch on the evolutionary tree.
We Have Been Told. Please take your arrogance over to another website and don't bother to come back.
-
There certainly are fast chargers in London, but you don't need many of them.
There are, according to TfL, almost 7,000,000 car parking spaces in London. If all road vehicles were electric, how many of these spaces would you want to have fast chargers? If not all, how will traffic flow be affected by people queuing to get to the fast charger before they look for a parking space?
Human greed and idiocy being what they are, whenever petrol is in short supply, people will queue for hours to get whatever is on offer and garages limit the amount they dispense to each car. The way to eliminate queues is instead to set a minimum quantity: you will be billed for at least 5 gallons, however little you take. But I can't see how that would shorten the queue for electric chargers as some people will indeed need a 20 minute charge.
But trolleybuses are a very good idea, if you have a reliable source of electricity.
-
There are, according to TfL, almost 7,000,000 car parking spaces in London. If all road vehicles were electric, how many of these spaces would you want to have fast chargers?
Want?
All of them!
But need?
Almost none!!
Not in central London anyway; on the main roads out of central London, sure.
Fast chargers- the level 3 chargers that can deliver 80% charge in 20 minutes, you don't really need them within a city; or perhaps just a few for the taxis.
What we have here is a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Plug-in hybrids, you claim that they're not necessary; but all new London taxi cabs are plug-in hybrids. The taxi drivers can make an extra £10k a year using hybrids. According to you, hybrids are a waste of space; but a diesel London taxi gets 15 mpg. A plug-in hybrid gets more like 80 mpg(e) in the same conditions. Other dinosaur powered cars get similarly awful mileage.
And we see similar complete lack of understanding and imagination on electric cars.
If not all, how will traffic flow be affected by people queuing to get to the fast charger before they look for a parking space?
Why would anyone fast charge before parking??? You do charging while you're parked, and only if you need to. In the context of London, you'd have to live more than 30 miles from where you work to need to do any charging at all; or live somewhere that had no provision for charging. A full level 2 charge only takes 3.5 hours, which happens while you're working, if you even need it. A fast level 3 charge is completely unnecessary in virtually all cases within London. Imagine if every road and car park has a short row of level 2 chargers on it- cos that's where we're headed.
You think you're being clever, but you're simply showing your absolute and total ignorance.
-
Why would anyone fast charge before parking??? You do charging while you're parked, and only if you need to. In the context of London, you'd have to live more than 30 miles from where you work to need to do any charging at all; or live somewhere that had no provision for charging. A full level 2 charge only takes 3.5 hours, which happens while you're working, if you even need it. A fast level 3 charge is completely unnecessary in virtually all cases within London. Imagine if every road and car park has a short row of level 2 chargers on it- cos that's where we're headed.
There's a difference between need and want. Unfortunately, cars are driven by humans, most of whom are driven by want, and do not have any intention of spending more than an hour parked in any particular place (blokes do stuff and move on, only girls go shopping). But let's consider a real need.
If I lived in London I wouldn't own a car anyway, and when I had a 9 to 5 job in the city, I rarely drove to work unless I was intending to go somewhere else in the evening. But now as a tradesman having to drive my Leaf 50 miles to get to a 1 hour job in the West End, I'm going to need a full charge before setting off for the next task. So I need a Level 3 charger, but as you say there won't be very many, and they will be occupied by taxis, I can see myself having to queue for an hour before parking somewhere else.
Life is complicated enough trying to find time to work without neglecting a dog and a girlfriend. I want a car that makes it simpler and saves time. I don't care if it's powered by a nuclear reactor or fairydust, but it has to travel at 70 mph for at least 300 miles then take no longer to refuel than it takes me to empty my bladder, and have a life expectancy of at least 200,000 miles before major overhaul or replacement. Right now, a non-plugin hybrid seems to be the best alternative to a diesel but the actual performance figures and cost of ownership are, apparently, disappointing.
-
I'm sorry if you somehow got the wrong impression that this thread is about your opinions, needs or wants in a car; but we really don't care about you at all. Please take your car shopping list to another website.
-
We Have Been Told.
but we really don't care about you at all.
I apologise for wasting Your Majesty's time. I had no idea I was addressing royalty.
-
Hopefully it will be possible, I saw this a while ago
http://blog.4wheelonline.com/2015/03/04/ford-plans-to-debut-electric-vehicle-with-200-mile-range-later-this-year/ (http://blog.4wheelonline.com/2015/03/04/ford-plans-to-debut-electric-vehicle-with-200-mile-range-later-this-year/)
I don't think an electric car with 200mpg is too far fetched, and hopefully they don't have issues with the batteries like the chevy volt [:-\]
-
You can't get an electric car with 200mpg, because where would you put the gallon, and how would it use it?
-
Something happened to the links to my videos in my posts so I'm going to repost them. There must be some kind of glitch. If they disappear again, do YouTube searches on the titles.
"Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump"
This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline.
the truth about gas and vapor part 1
the truth about gas and vapor part 2
Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=200%2B+MPG+Gasoline+Vaporizer+Project+Original+Design+%28Driving+On+Only+Gasoline+Vapor%29
Here's some additional info.
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=968
http://www.rexresearch.com/auto2/blackmoreconomy.pdf
http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploads/5/3/5/6/5356442/200mpg-carb.pdf
http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gashole-video_4af5b6c2e.html
If the above link disappears, click on this one.
https://www.google.es/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=eJEUWN-sGeOJ8QfqiIGgDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=Gashole
The name of the documentary is, "Gashole".
-
I have seen it published many times the answer is to have a wind driven generator generating Hydrogen from water that is injected into the engine giving vastly improved efficiency (the faster you go the more Hydrogen you get).
Kits are available for $1000.00