It's not strange at all. It's plausible the the oil companies had enough power to squelch the technology so that they wouldn't lose money.
If the technology was so wonderful, a pirate copy would soon appear.
And for anyone to believe it, modern EFI must be hopelessly inefficient compared to the device referred to.
To believe in it, requires a infinite degree of ignorance.
Edited by madf on 03/11/2014 at 12:24
|
|
|
It's not strange at all. It's plausible the the oil companies had enough power to squelch the technology so that they wouldn't lose money.
If a company was able to produce the above they would be rolling in cash. Obviously it doesn't work or someone would be selling and making money off it.
|
It's not strange at all. It's plausible the the oil companies had enough power to squelch the technology so that they wouldn't lose money.
If a company was able to produce the above they would be rolling in cash. Obviously it doesn't work or someone would be selling and making money off it.
This has been talked about since the 70s, and before, with no one really getting anywhere with it, like snake oil,some believe it, most consider the idea a no go(too many problems to resolve)
|
|
The original post states that gasoline vapours heated to 450 Fahrenheit are 'catalytically cracked to methane and methanol'.
Utter nonsense. For a start, there is no catalyst. Next, methanol contains an OH group, being an alcohol, whereas common gasoline constituents are straight or branched chain alkanes or naphthenes containing only CH2 and CH3 groups.
Cracking of crude oil to produce 'gasoline' takes place at temperature nearer 450 Centigrade, complex and costly catalysts are necessary too.
The claim is that existing systems fail to burn petrol efficiently, but 'boiling' petrol and feeding the engine vapour will magically give 10 times the mpg. This does not explain why existing LPG installations (effectively the same idea) only return the lower mpg expected from the known calorific value, which is less than petrol's.
|
|
|
|
The original post states that gasoline vapours heated to 450 Fahrenheit are 'catalytically cracked to methane and methanol'.
Utter nonsense. For a start, there is no catalyst. Next, methanol contains an OH group, being an alcohol, whereas common gasoline constituents are straight or branched chain alkanes or naphthenes containing only CH2 and CH3 groups.
Cracking of crude oil to produce 'gasoline' takes place at temperature nearer 450 Centigrade, complex and costly catalysts are necessary too.
The claim is that existing systems fail to burn petrol efficiently, but 'boiling' petrol and feeding the engine vapour will magically give 10 times the mpg. This does not explain why existing LPG installations (effectively the same idea) only return the lower mpg expected from the known calorific value, which is less than petrol's.
|
|
This has been talked about since the 70s, and before, with no one really getting anywhere with it, like snake oil,some believe it, most consider the idea a no go(too many problems to resolve)
That's not what I would tend to think after watching this video.
100+ MPG PROJECT VAPORIZER TEST DRIVE 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvOacCmBC8
Don't you think a few professional engineers could get the bugs out of this guy's setup?
|
This has been talked about since the 70s, and before, with no one really getting anywhere with it, like snake oil,some believe it, most consider the idea a no go(too many problems to resolve)
That's not what I would tend to think after watching this video.
100+ MPG PROJECT VAPORIZER TEST DRIVE 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvOacCmBC8
Don't you think a few professional engineers could get the bugs out of this guy's setup?
Yes,like he really knew what he was doing,no way that engine was running on vapour,in fact it sounded rough I thought,And it was imo a very dangerous setup.
I tried a similar idea on an Austin A40 in 1971 and found one of the problems was controlling the vapour volume,plus you couldnt supply enough to run engine past tickover, ie, it run for a couple of seconds then stalled and mostly wouldnt restart,his idea was not only dangerous, but he had no chance of running on tickover even with that setup
I gave it up as a bad idea and a dangerous one,I think everyone else thought so too
|
|
|
|
I've got a better idea for fuel economy
Stop driving a 2 tonne shed with a V8 petrol engine.
|
I've got a better idea for fuel economy
Stop driving a 2 tonne shed with a V8 petrol engine.
sounded more like an old tractor engine
|
|
|
|
This has been talked about since the 70s, and before, with no one really getting anywhere with it, like snake oil,some believe it, most consider the idea a no go(too many problems to resolve)
That's not what I would tend to think after watching this video.
100+ MPG PROJECT VAPORIZER TEST DRIVE 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvOacCmBC8
Don't you think a few professional engineers could get the bugs out of this guy's setup?
So you belive what you see on YouTube is the truth?
|
This has been talked about since the 70s, and before, with no one really getting anywhere with it, like snake oil,some believe it, most consider the idea a no go(too many problems to resolve)
That's not what I would tend to think after watching this video.
100+ MPG PROJECT VAPORIZER TEST DRIVE 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvOacCmBC8
Don't you think a few professional engineers could get the bugs out of this guy's setup?
So you belive what you see on YouTube is the truth?
TBH the OP can believe what they want, in truth as far as I know,it cannot be done certainly not the way its been shown in the videos,to my mind they are a recipe for disaster and surprised no one has been killed playing with fuel like that and would advise anyone that wants to try it NOT to.
Fuel vapour is dangerous at the best of times without playing with it
Thats my opinion anyway
|
|
So what is a layman supposed to think when he reads something like this?
www.sodahead.com/united-states/200-mpg-pogue-carbu.../
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1936 Breen Motor Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada tested the Pogue carburetor on a Ford V-8 Coupe and got 26.2 miles on one pint of gasoline (That’s 200+ mpg).. The performance of the car was 100% in every way.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
So what is a layman supposed to think when he reads something like this?
That it's not true and you shold get fact from a reputable website.
Have a read of this one:
www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
Unfortuneatly miracle products have never and will never appear.
If anyone could make what was said they would be very rich.
|
So what is a layman supposed to think when he reads something like this?
www.sodahead.com/united-states/200-mpg-pogue-carbu.../
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1936 Breen Motor Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada tested the Pogue carburetor on a Ford V-8 Coupe and got 26.2 miles on one pint of gasoline (That’s 200+ mpg).. The performance of the car was 100% in every way.
-----------------------------------------------------
They make films of father christmas but I dont believe it......
|
|
To put it simply, petrol injected into the cylinder is evaporated(vapour) as the air is pulled in to cylinder giving the combustible gas,
problem with trying vapour direct is getting enough,ie the petrol needs to vaporise very quickly in large amounts to make up the same amount that would normally be injected in liquid form
I have not yet seen anyone able to do this due to just this one problem, bearing in mind their are other problems involved
|
|
Whether it's petrol vapour direct or liquid petrol mixed with air via injector or whatever, it's still petrol and there's only a fixed amount of energy available per amount combusted.
If the petrol vapour theory holds good, even if it avoids some of the inefficiency of other fuel delivery methods, it cannot magic the vastly increased amount of energy from the fuel that would be required to produce 200 mpg.
|
Whether it's petrol vapour direct or liquid petrol mixed with air via injector or whatever, it's still petrol and there's only a fixed amount of energy available per amount combusted.
If the petrol vapour theory holds good, even if it avoids some of the inefficiency of other fuel delivery methods, it cannot magic the vastly increased amount of energy from the fuel that would be required to produce 200 mpg.
As I recall the theory came from someone that run out of petrol,as they run out the engine increased revs for a few seconds and then died, the thought was that the engine could run permanently on vapour,instead of injecting petrol, this idea has been tried and failed.
but to my knowledge has nothing to do with increased mpg,and has only been mentioned in the videos,its just another urban myth
|
So what is a layman supposed to think when he reads something like this?
www.sodahead.com/united-states/200-mpg-pogue-carbu.../
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1936 Breen Motor Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada tested the Pogue carburetor on a Ford V-8 Coupe and got 26.2 miles on one pint of gasoline (That’s 200+ mpg).. The performance of the car was 100% in every way.
-----------------------------------------------------
Anyone referencing a site which also deals with Kim Kardashian and has a section lablelled
"Who is the Most Famous Person Who is a Swinger?
Many famous actors, actresses, and musicians are rumored to be swingers, "
is not capable of distinguishing facts from fiction .. it would appear..
Edited by madf on 07/11/2014 at 13:14
|
|
As I understand it to get complete burning of the petrol for maximum efficiency the petrol/air needs to be mixed in a ratio of 14.7:1.
That figure appears to be written in stone and if other fuels are used the ratio is different.
So to get better mpg you would need to mix less fuel with air but surely that would simply produce less power. Too lean a mixure also melts pistons and valves.
If it was so simple one of the major manufacturers would have taken this technology on board years ago and knocked their competitors out of the ring.
Looks like an April 1st joke to me.
|
Have a read of this one:
www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
How do you that isn't damage-control article written by sophists? When people are learning about one of the government's dirty little secrets, the government pays public-relation agencies to try to control the damage. The internet is full of disinfo.
ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways...l
|
Have a read of this one:
www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
How do you that isn't damage-control article written by sophists? When people are learning about one of the government's dirty little secrets, the government pays public-relation agencies to try to control the damage. The internet is full of disinfo.
ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways...l
How do you know it isn't just a fact?
You seem to want to belive that it is true and there is a big conspiracy about it involving oil companies and the governemtn and so therefore won't even entertain the idea that it may kust be a load of rubbish.
|
Have a read of this one:
www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
How do you that isn't damage-control article written by sophists? When people are learning about one of the government's dirty little secrets, the government pays public-relation agencies to try to control the damage. The internet is full of disinfo.
ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways...l
Well if you cannot believe what has been said so far there is not really anymore to be said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
