Running on fumes....actually works!

[smooth]

Well r3v, he isn't wrong, but he isn't right. I have a push mower that I run using this technology. If you think about a gasoline engine, it is an air pump. It draws in air and pushes it out. Now, why would you push liquid into an air pump? This is what you do every day.

the running theme of people talking about this like it works is that some seem to think that engines use liquid fuel to run. Then they think they can "thin" the fuel and still get it to run. But engines don't run off liquid fuel...at least not efficiently.

In the olden days we had to manually adjust carbs but now fuel atomization is handled by a computer and fuel injectors. You'd be hard pressed to get a better air:fuel ratio by hand. You and the guy with the video could achieve what you're experimenting with by leaning out the carburetor. It won't make your engine run better but if you're simply interested in fuel economy and idling up and down the road (or light patches of grass on the lawn) then you might be able to eek out some fuel savings. You'd probably get better results cleaning and rebuilding your carb, though.

[McGyver]

Thank you for pointing that out. This is why I probably shouldn't write these type of things when I'm tired. Aside from the fact that I wrote compression instead of intake, what other problems do you have with this? I'm happy to answer.

Ok, the flash point for gasoline is -45F. (Flash point - the minimum temperature for a substance to produce enough vapors to ignite.) so any temperature above -45F will produce enough flammable vapors to ignite. That is why you are able to run an engine off of a "vaporizer". That is also why you can run the engine with water (or any other substance) in the gasoline.

HOWEVER, the concentration of gasoline vapors in the intake air has to be between 1.4% and 7.6%. Any more or less and you won't get combustion.

You're not getting amazing fuel economy or any sort of magical boost by running your intake air through gasoline, you're just mixing the fuel with the air in an uncontrolled and inefficient manner. Any claim that it is possible to produce the same output power for significantly less initial energy is a complete lie. It is not physically possible to conserve engine power while reducing the amount of energy put into the system without making the engine significantly more efficient. A "vaporizer" does not increase efficiency, therefore any claims of increased performance, or efficiency, violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

[Wschnitz]

I have a major issue - it's called thermodynamics.

This

also, I dont find spreading fuel all over all of my intake parts a good thing, and I highly doubt you would come out with anything near the same horsepower with this rednecking.

[nando]

I have a major issue - it's called thermodynamics.

[KI4UJO]

Based on the fact that you obviously don't which stroke is which, I call bullshit.

Thank you for pointing that out. This is why I probably shouldn't write these type of things when I'm tired. Aside from the fact that I wrote compression instead of intake, what other problems do you have with this? I'm happy to answer.

[McGyver]

Basically, when the engine draws in air during the compression stroke, it is therefore forced to pull its air from the container.

Based on the fact that you obviously don't which stroke is which, I call bullshit.

[KI4UJO]

Well r3v, he isn't wrong, but he isn't right. I have a push mower that I run using this technology. If you think about a gasoline engine, it is an air pump. It draws in air and pushes it out. Now, why would you push liquid into an air pump? This is what you do every day. However, this works much differently. Basically, when the engine draws in air during the intake stroke, it is therefore forced to pull its air from the container. The only openings in the container are the two tubes, which run to the bottom of the container (therefore their ends are covered in fuel). Air drawn through the fuel, which creates the characteristic bubbles of fuel vaporizers, is mixed with fuel vapor and drawn into the intake. However, in my experience, I have not yet reached the levels of economy noted below. Also, if you are afraid of heating gasoline, DO NOT build one of these. My vaporizer sets around 1 in. away from the exhaust outlet on the mower and reaches around 175 degrees according to my laser thermometer.

As for the history of this device, look up two things: the Pogue Carburetor and Tom Ogle. Both were stopped from reaching production in various ways. Also, as mentioned above, there is the Smokey Yunick Hot Cycle Engine. That is an extremely innovative piece of machinery.

For reference, here is an early prototype of mine. If I remember correctly, I was running gas/water at the time. I have also used e85, bad gas (with floating rust chunks), gas/cooking oil, and water/e85.

Feel free to ask anything about this. I'm happy to answer.

[nando]

Just get an electric supercharger or one those turbinator things. Also, magnets.

[mrsleeve]

You want to look into something for fuel economy

Hot cycle engine, designed by the master Smokey Yunick, our modern engine engineers only wish they knew what he forgot about engine building and theory

[keine30]

the fact of the matter is that because of basic chemical laws, you simply can't run a motor on significantly less fuel than it uses stock. it literally cannot happen.

plus there's no way to control the fuel flow and raise the RPM. sure, as you open the throttle the engine will pull more air in the intake, and theoretically more 'vapor,' but not in a controlled amount.

videos like this rely on the fact that most people, unless they have a vested interest in mechanics and cars, just see that lump of metal under the hood as magic. sure, they know that the gas goes in and it gets ignited by the spark plugs and the used gas goes out, but the average person don't know exactly WHY that happens, or the extremely exact parameters that need to be fulfilled for that to happen effectively.

not to mention that the injectors/carb already 'vaporizes' the full upon injection... gasoline isn't flammable, gasoline fumes are. c'mon guys.

[econti]

Not to mention that if you run it too lean you run the risk of melting things

[nrubenstein]

14.7:1 = stoich mixture = 'nuff said

The one example where anyone showed real engineers testing it, they should mild increases in fuel economy in exchange for massive increases in emissions. Classic lean burn side effects.

[dewme5]

14.7:1 = stoich mixture = 'nuff said

[nrubenstein]

LOL.

If this shit actually worked, someone would be marketing it right now in an actual product and not as vaporware. You will note that no one gets these things running on a proper test rig (i.e. under controlled conditions).

[15Michaeljoseph]

There's no way this can be that good, otherwise he would be a billionare now, and be sitting in a nice big office at GM...or whatever company he chooses to sell his design to first.
Secondly, I'm sure some scientist came up with something similar sometime before and the idea was scrapped. No way a guy who used a LIGHTER to look into a GAS TANK was the first one to come up with this.

I'm skeptical.




--Mike