One Simple Trick to get 100 miles per gallon with less pollution!
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 03. 2017
- I take the time to educate you on some simple concepts regarding fuel consumption and pollution. Then I give you the concept behind my invention that is capable of producing the results titled and discussed.
Canadian Patent #: 2,876,642 - Věda a technologie
There are a lot of patents for vapor carburetors. An engineer at GM came up with a vapor carb that would give 250 mpg. In a not to unexpected turn of events, the fuel companies responded to this threat to their bottom lines. They have added shellac (for lack of the proper term) that causes vapor carbs to become totally gummed up over time to stop the vapor carb threat... I'm assuming Zeek on Earth does not know this. The idea is extremely good and can be made workable with gasoline that is not "shellaced." Hint: there is none available to us.
For all of you who seemed to miss the "one simple trick." The trick is to first vaporize the liquid thus providing a fuel that will burn up completely and not leave unburned hydrocarbons. Everything he is saying is correct. Also, for those of you too smart to listen to the whole lecture on how an engine works, please think of the people who literally do not know and so would not appreciate the simple trick without a basic understanding of 4 cycle engines.. Again, the trick is to eliminate the liquid before it gets in the engine. The attempt at making better and better injection systems is to get finer and finer mists to increase efficiency of gasoline engines. The reasoning behind that is that the finer the mist, the more of it that will turn to a gas and burn before being expelled. Nothing is more efficient than gas vapor: It cools the burn chamber and then burns perfectly.
Another way to think about this: You fill your tank with gasoline and then drive down the road and some of your gas (money) is dribbling onto the ground. The more and faster you drive the more money you lose. You are paying to eject some of the gasoline into the environment and not to power your vehicle. That waste stops if the liquid could first be turned into vapor. Then all your money goes to moving the vehicle.
is there a way to periodically clean the shitlac out of the system to negate the nefarious corporations stealing from we the people?
Is this better for the engine then running too lean? I think they added Lead to gasoline in 1922.
@@alphajuliet01al yes, you can clean the shellac by spending all the saved money from fuel economy for some acetone to clean the carb...lol
@@alphajuliet01al just buy distilled gasoline.
So why don't propane or natural gas vehicles get 250 MPG?
Anybody pushing battery powered cars please remember they have to be charged...using power from??? Coal/nuclear/oil also batteries have environmental costs too. Even solar panels have to be made from rare earth ingredients requiring mining/processing.
vtg100 ambient electricity is almost free! Anyone who’s truly looked at the logic of hydro or diesel produced power will go how can this supply millions of homes, impossible..
ahhh but it IS possible...with sunny fields of glass and extention cords were carn use to grow, and there aint no fields to plow...world will collapse from round up poisnin their cancer cells before ya can count 23 million chinamenwomen..so then all will be energy suspition until the sun runs out of super X 4..
Lol they can make 1 million windmills
@@realtan9026hopefully you are not saying this thinking that this is a reasonable solution.
Windmills are highly inefficient, have many problems.
Just a few things you have overlooked. First the carburettor does not pour neat fuel into the engine, it Atomises it. Then the piston raises the pressure and temperature of the air/fuel mixture to about 120psi and 300 deg C, before the spark occurs. At these temperatures any fuel particle will become a gas.
I swapped a John Deere 4045T into a 1969 Dodge Coronet I got from a friend who was going to scrap it, since it's interior was trashed, and the engine and transmission was toast. He bought it with the intention to restore it and never did.
I got the 4045T from an old generator unit some guy was selling for $700 bucks because the piston had rusted to the cylinder sleeve from being stored for a long time (Potentially with water in it) I replaced the piston and sleeve with new ones and it was then able to run.
About a month later I got the Coronet and came up with the idea to swap it after I had bought it.
I did some research and found out there are few transmissions out there that are not computer controlled that will mate up to this engine. So I then took the transmission off along with the backhoe differential. The reduction is like 12:1, so I swapped out the stock pinion gears for some custom fab ones I had made for me. Since it has 8 lug rims, I lifted the Coronet up 6 inches to fit some pickup truck tires on a pair of 8 lug rims since all I could find was truck tires. (Truck as in pickup truck). After that I put the engine in on some motor mounts which I made, and they do the job a-ok. I had to put taller, stiffer shocks and spring up front since the last engine weighed 65% of what this one does. Since the turbo was gonna be sticking out of the hood because the exhaust manifold exits up, I cut a hole in the hood, put a sheet metal box (with small vent holes up front) welded to the hood around the turbo housing and cut a hole in the top just big enough for a small 4" hoodstack to fit our the top. I got a custom driveshaft made to link the transmission and differential, which works pretty darn good.
The stock main transmission stick lined up perfectly in the original hole but another one had to get drilled out to fit the auxiliary (high/low) range stick. It's made like a 4+2 transmission, so it's an 8 speed technically.
I also ran the starter relay, made a injector pump linkage to the stock pedal along with a new brake system for the back and a clutch linkage (although the gears are real close ratio, so I can float gears no problem)
All in all it was a really fun and interesting project, but also kind of expensive. The total build cost was $2500 ish, (forgot to mention I found some cheap old bench seats for the interior which I put too.
This thing can get nearly 60 mpg going 60 down the highway (I advanced the injection timing a bit) and puts out probably 130 hp with probably somewhere in the ballpark of 300 ft lbs of torque, since I also did a 30% fuel turn up.
This thing sounds like a semi if you do a second gear low range take off from a stop! It's also loud and gets a lot of looks when driving through town.
(For those wondering, I did put a filter on the intake, it's a nice little racing filter I got for $40 off Amazon, a little expensive but since it's outside theengine bay I wanted to make sure it's getting the right kind of filtration it needs, and still get the right amount of air). Believe it or not this is my daily driver! It's a real beast.
Thanks for reading.
One big problem is by nature as creatures of habit is we don't handle change very well until the supply that feeds our habit becomes threatened.Your invention is an amazing thing,and hopefully people will get sick and tired of paying too much for gas. We'll realize that all along we've been basically wasting fuel.
I like your idea and have thought about it for years. The trouble is that lean and fully gassed mixtures, although far more efficient, require an engine redesign which would cool down the engine walls faster. Lean mixtures translate to hotter engine walls. So, today's car industry is actually using the rich fuel mixtures to cool the engine from inside. Pour gasoline in your hand and notice how cool it feels. Combustion in these engines are always operating in a gas choking style well controlled. In an old engine design with carburetors, when you adjust to a lean mixture the engine races. So, you are right. But the design of today's engine makes it impossible to run it that lean.
The reality is that if all the heat generated by the engine was converted back to work we would get easily 200 - 350 miles per gallon. For that, we need a complement engine like the Stirling engine to charge batteries and subject both engines to that effort. One engine uses gas and generates heat and electricity with a generator. The other one uses heat to charge the batteries and run air conditioning. The gasoline engine is an astonishingly inefficient engine. It uses less than 11% of the power which gasoline can offer. The Carnot cycle is an idealization which shows you the guaranteed loss, which wastes inevitably 32% of the power under ideal conditions due to adiabatics. But that leaves 68% of power to play with. So, 68% - 11% , or 57% loss, tells us that more than half of the power from gasoline is wasted in inefficiencies, most of which is wasted heat. The criminal here is the guy who invented the radiator. It was a shortcut to selling gasoline engines before the research and engineering were completed.
What if you ad a water injector system, to cool the engine, at higher rpm?
@@keithc8108 works fine!
I know nothing about the subject matter, but what you wrote makes total sense, and is very disheartening to see such a waste, an environmentalist not targeting this particular issue. Instead, they want to take away so many of our rights, instead of doing the job correctly. The wrong people are never held accountable, while the everyday person who's trying to survive, is punished, due to the shadiness surrounding us as a people.
*_"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled"_*
~ Mark Twain.
.
you talkin about the snow ball dimykrats?
Thats bc people are too stiff necked and stubborn to actually admit when they are wrong or in this case fooled. On the other hand, it is the sincere and persisent ones that find the answers they are looking for. The skeptical give in early and never reach the prize. The question is, what do you consider to be the prize? It could be different for every person. What is junk to one man is treasure to another man.
@@chadcervantes6066 I like what you said about the question, "is what do you consider the prize?" The MAGA people should be asking themselves that very question. Make America Great Again for who? So far billionaires and large corporations have benefited greatly but not so much has been happening for the poor and middle class. Continuing dependence on fossil fuels doesn't help the poor and middle class either because, unlike solar, those fuels have to be continually repurchased from the rich that have them.
@Zombie ZH himer I got £3000.00 that says he won't
@Zombie ZH himer I'm happy if you want to accept, Sir
You are absolutely right. It's called the vapor carburetor.
czcams.com/video/Ke0MGmUr3SU/video.html
We've only be using gasoline vapor heating, torch, and other systems for a hundred years. Modern engines burn well lean of peak. They're kept cool by the volume of air transiting the engines, as well as by the engine coolant. This gentleman's "one simple trick" is bunk.
Cars that do heat fuel are around for a long time and they do use less fuel. The 1,9 litre OPEL OHC engine and early Holden engines had the inlet manifold screwed onto the exhaust manifold. This did heat up the carburetor and the fuel it contained and it leads to a significant fuel reduction. As I am driving such a car since 1973 I speak from experience. But- it comes for a price. This system only works on long distance driving. If you stop the engine the fuel in the carburetor evaporates and you need to crank the engine a lot longer until the swimmer chamber fills up again and the fuel in the previously hot carburetor is lost. I bypassed the cranking problem by installing an electric fuel pump which I only need before I start the engine. The carburetor still creates fuel droplets but in hot weather they evaporate before the fuel-air mixture enters the combustion chamber. In cold weather this does not work as well as the low pressure (often wrongly called vacuum) in the inlet manifold causes the air to cool down. This is why you can get carburetor icing already at + 5 deg C. Also fuel injection into the combustion chamber only creates fine droplets which do not burn as well as vaporized fuel. There is just not enough time for them to vaporize especially in high REVs. This might be different when the (hot) fuel is injected into the inlet manifold. A supercharger heats up the air significantly under pressure and is beneficial in this case while non pressurized hot air contains less oxygen. You can improve combustion significantly by sucking Brown's gas (Hydrogen-oxygen mixture) with the fuel mixture into the engine. It acts as a catalyst and the combustion is much cleaner. I also tried this and it works, the engine also produces more power - if you do this right (see: Joe cell). Just for the record: Climate change is caused by the energy output of the sun and has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is heavier than the gasses of the air and following gravity stays on the ground and not high up to create the glass house effect. A little knowledge of physics and chemistry is sometimes useful. I often wonder what those "experts" studied. I only know it was neither physics nor chemistry. Is there a subject called bullshitry?
Horst, yes, Bullshitry, this is a subject that most politicians excel at. Also, I've read that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, put more pollution into the atmosphere in a few days, than what Man has contributed in a hundred years...
I like what you said if you still have the car and more info make a video! Just so we can learn from you.
great explanation, but doesnt hot gasoline vapor also mean super lean burning, which increases engine temperature and early destruction
Thank God I went to school before science was so corrupted by grant money, and I have a good memory. Learned in the early seventies that all atmospheric gases have a greenhouse effect, the largest greenhouse gas in volume is nitrogen. The Earth's Moon has virtually no atmosphere, therefore it has no greenhouse effect. At night the moon is as cold as space gets inside the solar system. Carbon dioxide traps heat, but so does every component of Earth's atmosphere. Next time some know it all hits you with the doomsday man caused global warming scenario point this out. Another thing to point out is that Earth's icecaps have come and gone without mankind in any form being here. Maybe the dinosaurs used to much coal. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant then so is oxygen.
Carbon dioxide actually is uniform in its occurrence in our atmosphere, there is the same amount at sea level, as there is at 30,000 ft above sea level, and anywhere/everywhere else and in between. It cannot efficiently trap heat at all. The greenhouse gas that traps heat here, is water vapor, CLOUDS. Besides, CO2 only makes up 0.0385% (less than four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere), it is literally a trace element, there is not enough of it to trap heat...
This is a great idea. The process of setting up ones own vehicle is the challenge. Hope you make it as simple as possible.
this guy is a genius...trying to help us...thank you...
Congrats teacher!
Great idea!
One more thing: when you reduce the pollution (particulated material, oxides and others) you reduce together the illness.
Regards.
Yes, Big Pharma would not like that, now would they?😮
Easiest way to get better fuel economy is buying a siphon hose.
And even cheaper if you just take one from walmart.
Boy! This guy must be rolling in dough with the patent he has on this one simple trick!
I'm still trying to figure out what he is saying, usually exhaust had oxides of nitrogen and co2
I'd sure love to install this device on my vehicle if I knew where to get it. Great video anyway, thank you. 👍
Thank God he is Canadian. Tired of always Americans embarrassing me.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY Very interesting what these environmental whack job say for one there is no fuel sort shortage. Number to your average Joe at burns 4 liters of jet fuel per second
Keep in mind Allgore In case you forgot was vice president when Hillary was in charge of the country for eight years wasted all this jet fuel flying around the country to tell us how we needed to drive electric cars
Did you mean Al Gore? Or Allgore? Or Allegory? ... "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.:" So in this case, you are correct if you meant "Al Gore" or "Allegory", but if the latter, then you shouldn't have capitalized the A. Hillary was no in charge of the country ... Monica was.
What does anything really mean? What do you mean by the word mean?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 you nailed it
Spell much ?
Well - one thing is for sure. 45 years ago, I found the vapour carbs of the 20's and 30's. They were large and since it was readily combustive, you had a explosive mixture during an accident. Metals were not as strong as they are now. You could burn exhaust valves quick. The one thing I recall is that 4 barrels were good at burning or at least dumping fuel down the intake. The smog stuff, the CAT is only there to make sure that everything out the pipe is charred and no hydro-carbons escape without being reduced with O2. I drove a V8 in the 70's and it got 14 to 30 mpg depending on conditions. Today, a 1/2 ton V8 gets about the same mileage as I did all those years ago. Have we really improved anything, or just muddied the waters and you don't know. It matters not what you or I believe, we are both right. Cheers
Awesome Presentation !!! I've watched your video before but it was suggested by YT so I watched it again. Thank you for trying to educate our propagandized Brothers and Sisters !!!
Thank you.
the best explanation and simple show I ever seen and hoard !!!
Real title: "Simple trick to get you to waste 16 minutes of your life watching yet another video where there is no connection between title and content. " Included bonus: Hundreds of comments from viewers who are so personally damaged and scarred for life, incensed, insulted, and irresistably compelled to point out and correct, what they percieve as a misuse of the term 'fossil fuel' that they are completely distracted from the discussion of anything else.
Kenneth Vaughan I agree with you 100% a waste of my time to watch this video
Right on the spot. Who is this idiot who made this video.
Here is one from a guy you may never heard of....Tom Ogle. He created this Fuel Vapor System in the 1970's .... and patented it. The oil companies bought his patent, not to make them, but to keep them from being made. Tom Ogle was killed later under suspicious circumstances ! .....The patent protection has long since expired so anyone can make the system and sell it today! ..... but they might die for doing it. The oil companies don't want it produced! .... Here is the patent for it. (notice on the left it says in RED ...FULL DOCUMENT) ... click it for the full documentation. .....Tom Ogle would have loved to see it used by everyone! ... pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=04177779&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D4,177,779.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F4,177,779%2526RS%3DPN%2F4,177,779&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page
Kenneth Vaughan I'm glad i read your comment 27 seconds in
Yes my friend and it was my pleasure! ..... Tom Ogle wasn't out to make ton's of money he was trying to be helpful and that is why I pass his patent on to everyone.
How good does it work for you? what kind of gas millage do you get with it?
7-27-2019 - - - I didn't see in the video where the problem with running "lean" causing overheating of the cylinders was resolved. Did I miss it? So, now with this I can get 70 miles per gallon but need a new engine every 100 miles - or did I miss something?
The title tells you how useful this video is
I thoroughly enjoyed this three minute presentation
The earth hasn't stopped making crude.
You explained that in a simple to understand demo, now tell me where to buy your unit?
Back in the early 1980's we were using a setup similar to this. It was called a "Pogue carburetor". It worked fair. I did not spend a lot of time on it, as it was hard to make it work at all throttle openings on a Pontiac 350ci. motor. I think I still have the paperwork on this somewhere. Haven't thought about this in years.
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
This is a good solution to burn rate, power and efficiency, however it does not seem safe. Like you've already mentioned, gas can only ignite when it has oxygen to react with. If these are already mixed inside a high pressure tube, a premature ignition would be explosive.
There are two main variables to consider: Pro: The earlier they are mixed, the more efficient the burn will be. Con: The earlier they are mixed, the higher the chance of a premature explosion will be + the more explosive it will be, as there is more fuel/oxygen to react. This is where you find a balance.
With the methods already in use today, the risk of fuel combusting before reaching the engine is almost zero, as the fuel lines are sealed off from oxygen.
1. It was first synthesized in a lab using high pressure, hot water and rock taken from deep in the Earth. Crude oil was produced.
2. Oil companies have gone back to wells capped off in the past and found the well full of oil. Again, oil is constantly being formed all the time.
But what you don't understand is the timeline continuum that's happening underneath our shoes.
Ice Age proved that Dinosaurs are still alive in a land underneath us that exists millions of millions of years ago, and dinosaurs had to die in order to produce that oil.
I mean Manny, Diego and Sid are literally telling us how that oil exists and you need to listen.
@@JDMatthias simple question if dinosaurs produced oil why do oil wells pump from depths further then any known fossil has been found? Oil is drilled much further then fossil records go. Oil isn't going anywhere. Gulf of Mexico has more the middle east. And the middle east has hundreds of trillions more oil. The Wells are reproducing the oil level has risen back up. And Alaska has more oil then the gulf of Mexico. The earth replenishes oil. The russians did the math back in the 50s early 60s with there own wells was billions and billions of gallons more then the wells could extract yearly. They drilled the deepest hole at 8 miles. The bits literally burned up 7 to 8 miles took like a decade. The fossil record going through 10s and 100s of millions of years only goes down around 1 to 2 miles oil is way past fossils were told are gazillions of years old. You can. Even tell new oil from old oil. New oil is that black sludge crap you see on TV which is all over. Old oil is as clean and clear as oil straigbt from a quart. I'm serious oil is big business in my area. Old oil is so pure you could take it straight from the ground jato your engine it's not dirty doesnt need refining like what people call crude. Here's the problem oil is drilled lower then organic material ever reaches. If trees and Dino poop can't get down low enough how are they making the oil. Oik can be made naturally you can take Tissue pressurize it and it makes oil its a science experiment in college thats popular. What's not taught is you can take deep earth rock with hot water and pressurize it and get oil as well.
breaking news, you can always trust the russions to lead in the correct direction of the circle...no doubt in any sane persons' minds that oil is being produced dailie, will never run out, more oil under the north pole that is under the south pole, let that soak in reel good...not to mention oil leases are being rit up as we type in the sue eze cut through...the there is the recent discovery of distilled engine oil in my neighbors drive way...then, if all that doesn't make all feel better, we have more than 20 chances of a dum ass being president for 8 more years some what similar to the last worthless 8..
@@JDMatthias The flood killed the dinosaurs along with man, all except for 8 survivors. Biblically the earth is about 6,000 years old getting ready to enter the Sabbatical Millenial reign of the King of kings. Not trying to argue, just sharing some information you are free to accept.
@@davidmorgan9095 I agree the Russians are smart. I recommend you watch, "Zeitgeist, moving forward" We do have a serious crisis on our hand and people are too asleep to recognize that its coming until its full blown. The government does a good job at suppressing the info from the people and keeping the population calm and dumb. But lets face it, it takes something Greater than the government to fix all the problems we currently have as well as the problems heading for us.
Where can I get more information and possibly of getting this for my car
Great idea. One issue is as the air fuel ratio is leaner and hotter, the results of combustion produce NOx. Which is what VW was doing with their diesel engines.
I really appreciate the time and effort!
OK, so mixing the air fuel before it enters the cylinder is an argument in favor of a carburetor. That's exactly what a carburetor does, except it's atomized liquid fuel and your suggestion is that it should already be a gas before entering the cylinder. One could argue that atomized fuel vaporizes pretty quickly so much of it from a carburetor is actually vapor by the time it enter the cylinder. But that doesn't actually work out as well as injectors in practice. So let's examine combustion more closely.
There are 2 things happening in combustion that create pressure in the cylinder. One is heat and the other is a change in the total number of molecules due to combustion. Obviously, the more heat generated in combustion, the more the gas would expand if it were not contained. It is contained and therefore pressure increases due to the rise in temperature. This is something we are pretty familiar with and is described in Gay-Lussac's gas law.
The other point relates to Avogadro's law, a liter of any gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP) will contain 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. It doesn't matter how big, or how complex the molecules are there will be the same number of them in a given volume at STP. Therefore, whatever gas we draw into a cylinder will have the same number of molecules regardless of what the gas is comprised of. In the case of fuel injection, all of it will be air and then we add fuel in addition to that. However, in the case of the suggested air/fuel mix, some will be air and some fuel, leaving us with less air and less fuel and therefore less power than with fuel injection. So, this would have a similar effect on fuel economy as just having a smaller less powerful engine.
If you really want to save fuel, you need to look at the fundamentals of combustion efficiency to extract more power from the process. Assuming a naturally aspirated engine, we are limited by the amount of air drawn into the cylinder but can inject any amount of fuel, The component of air that is consumed in combustion is oxygen (O2) this is a molecule composed of 2 atoms. If the combustion product molecule only has 1 oxygen atom, there will be more molecules so more pressure and power. Petrol is a hydrocarbon and mostly produces CO2, H2O and CO H2O and CO both have only one oxygen. CO2 has 2 oxygen. If we can eliminate CO2 so that there are more single O atoms, we will get more power but we don't really want CO (carbon monoxide) as it is poisonous. In fact modern engines try to minimize this by creating more CO2 which gives us less power. What this shows is the carbon based fuels are not going to be ideal.
So, what is ideal? We want to produce a simple 2 atom molecule 1 fuel and 1 oxygen only but we don't want poisonous CO (carbon monoxide) and we don't want CO2 because the engine capacity limits oxygen intake. Of the products we currently have H2O is the closest though we would prefer less fuel molecules consumed. Hydrogen is known to have the highest calorific (heat) value of any fuel and it maximises the number of exhaust molecules for the engines capacity. However, we don't have to use all that extra power and not doing so reduces the amount of fuel burned. The problems are: extracting hydrogen cheaply, liquefying, storing and handling. The danger presented by it being a gas at environmental temperatures and pressures (consider the Hindenburg) and of course, we are using 2 fuel atoms to 1 oxygen which is still not ideal. As above, a simple 2 atom molecule would be the goal but not poisonous ones like CO.
So, hopefully all this might indicate some of the real problems with trying to improve fuel efficiency and show that claims might be just too good to be true and have hidden impositions you may not like, such as less power which you can choose to do anyway just by vehicle choice and or slowing down.
I agree this vid draws an incorrect conclusion, but so does your combustion analysis. Every analysis around ignores the fact that the combustion air is 80% nitrogen. The internal combustion engine takes in huge volumes of nitrogen that is at ambient temperature and expels it into the exhaust manifold at very high temperature. A huge amount of energy is lost in making hot nitrogen.
I think we should not be looking for combustion efficiency but rather a different type of fuel or changing the engine system to accept the mentioned mixture in the video, bc as stated in the video, our traditional fuel will eventually run out. I think producing hydrogen on demand and not storing it is the best route. But I think the problem with that is that it can oxidize and ruin the engine if water molecules gets trapped in the engine over time.
@@chadcervantes6066 H2O is a natural by product in current engines, so no change.
Reduce engine knock and advance your ignition timing. That way there is more time to burn the air fuel mixture at each combustion event.
My test car already runs full timing advance.
I might have a cxouple of suggestions that will improve your setup. My brother and his friend made a headgasket with four sets of platinum points equally mounted around the cylinder. It was layered in between the gasket material like a circuit board. So instead of firing from the spark plug it fired from each set of points. The platinum points had no place to hold any carbon build up so would not foul out like a spark plug. and firing the gas mixture with four sets of spark burned the fuel vapor quicker and more completely.(old airplanes had two sparkplugs per cylinder)
Giving an increase of power with less fuel consumtion and less emissions. My idea to add to this is to reduce fuel droplet size thus increasing surface area of the fuel by using an ultrasonic mister which instantly vaporizes a drop of liquid to a finer mist than a carburator is capable of. This should also increase power while decreasing consumption andEmmisions. The reason you do not see this gasket method of spark on the market now is a sparkplug company bought their patent. Their was a drawback to the design they had not worked out at the time and that was that the gasket was thicker and you had to torque it down just right or it would blow the gasket. But this was 40 years ago and we have much better materials to work with now. I really hope you read this or anyone else . It could be an easy add on for cars well worth the cost for the increased economy and decrease of emmisions. Hopefully give a little more time for the transition to the totally electric cars that are coming. Jake The Snake Was interested in the gasket for his race cars as it would have been a huge advantage. So if you need an investor you might want to try him. It also goes to show how money trumps humanityand that big corporations (Firestone) are more concerned with the bottom line than reducing polution to save mankind. We really need to institute a crimes against humanity law for people like that and Big Pharma who suppress or overprice discoveries that benefit life.. Please send a comment should you read this. I like to think I am at least trying yo help.
You are right but the one who sent me this link to watch is already doing what the presenter is suggessting. It is very easy and does not require opening of tapet cover or engine etc, just extend n drop a pipe straight in the air cleaner and that is it.
The gas and oil companies will never let anyone use this gaseous state for more efficient combustion. The number of increased mileage patents is in the thousands and the fossil fuel companies are sitting on literally everyone of them. PERIOD !!!! SO THE ODDS OF THIS HAPPENING IS ZERO PERCENT, PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!
P.S. nice video fella with accurate information. A refreshing accurate facts presented Sir.
We need to start with your program, ASAP. Great job!
its amazing that fuel economy for the same size car and roughly same size engine. 30 to 45 years apart still gets about the same fuel economy
That is not exactly true. The cathalitic converter reduces overall fuel efficiency and all the safety features make our modern cars more heavy. Despite this these set backs for a fuel economic perspective they have a comparable milage with the old cars. Amazing if you think about it.
This guys video is nothing but a sham. I fell over laughing at the dirty, rusted, junk yard engine that supposedly was the 'proof'.
back in the day (mid 90's) I had a 1987 honda civic CRX (hv? model I think). That car had a 4cyl engine, a 5 speed manual tranny, and had >200k miles on it. My avg efficiency was ~45 mpg (mostly city with a small bit of highway). it was light-weight, not fuel injected (it had a carburetor) , and still managed this economy. It was able to do so because of weight savings and simple engineering compared to modern vehicles. It was zippy enough, but certainly not a 'fast' or even really a 'quick' car, but still very fun and economical to drive. I laugh at that whenever I see the proud claims of today's super hybrid cars sporting ~50 mpg in recent years.
Dad's 1946 car got 35m/ ga now cars get that and we are told it's a miracle.
I didn't say they were the same, but yes it is absolutely valid to compare the bottom line efficiency. Modern cars have more safety features, therefore weigh more, and have many more computer/sensor driven systems, and they can obtain the efficiency with more 'zip'. My point is that the diminishing returns are staggering.
This guy is so full of it, all his "facts" are incorrect. His conclusions are outlandish.
Great explanation,
Yes very true, we can, and we should.
Gud luck.
...OMG!! The world IS NOT going end in 12 years now. ...you made my day!!
Erick I have been involved in projects like this one you have.
I'd like to talk to you about that.
How can we get in touch?
Thank you for sharing this video.
Do you have a finished modification on a vehicle you can demonstrate for all of us, and show us the efficiency? or proof of concept?
Aaron Leon .... His cousin did a test and swore he got 100 mpg in his Lesabre. You calling him a liar?
Some one I know (I've decided not to name him) has fitted a Pantone GEET system to a generator engine. He created a base line by running the UN-converted engine under very precise loads. He measured fuel consumption, plug a gas analyse into the exhaust and measured oxygen, CO2, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.
He then converted the engine and run the same set of tests using the same experiment and compared the results.
80% to 90% reduction in pollution 25% to 30% fuel saving.
He spent years getting it to work but thanks to the armchair critics he is no longer interested in proving it to anyone. The planet is 1 degree warmer than pre industrial age, 0.7 deg since the second word war. Billions of tones of C02 and Methane gas is waiting to be released from the permafrost in Alaska and Russia.
So my friend is living on an island working on advanced food growing systems if you live in a "modern" society buying your food from the super market you will starve before he does.
I got well over 100 MPG with this technique. Technically, I didn't use "this" technique ... I simply measured while going down a very long hill because it was easier.
Aaron Leon: You COULD build and set up a GEET system for you car's engine. They're not too expensive but they have to be built just so in order to increase your fuel mileage and consume less gas. OR... you could look into getting an HHO mod for your car. BOTH are provided in videos here on CZcams if you wanna spend your spare time building it. However, BOTH require your car's computer to be modified and there aren't many shops around the world that can do that because it's still a new concept and the oil companies won;t make big money off of it so it will all die out soon enough. Sad huh?
I'd like to learn more. I don't know much about this stuff, but it sounds like such systems, to gasify fuel, could work on older, pre-computer controlled engines, without need to modify computer controls.
Is that 16x/sec for 1 individual injector? If so thats a lot of spraying for all the injectors functioning at once.
what is the purpose of fuel pressure regulator on fuel injection systems?
So, how do we get this device, and functionally installed in my car?
Any kind of practical / safe way can be easily thought out through plumbing around the exhaust pipe.
The transitory action from solid to gas is known as a state but in effect it isn't a state it's Termed as sublimination and can be achieved in many ways depending on different factors. Sublimination is the effect of ejecton of breakdown/(transitory leap) from solid matter too gasious state.
So the form is the state and the transformation is termed sublimination.
Copper tubing around the radiator hose and insulated worked well for me on a 91 xj years ago.Going to try it again on my yj 4.0. back in 02 I did this on a dodge stealth and we rough figured it was around 62mpg
In the early 80's my used car , got 40 miles a gallon.
With the so called '' new improved technology), cars should get at leased 80 miles a gallon now.
Am I asking for to much after 30 years.
They don't want people knowing what makes their engine run.
Cars now get 24 mpg and people are fine with it.
J & B Homeliving Vega or k car Geo metro all got 40 mpg
Had a 64 1/2 Mustang with a 260 that got 23 mpg. Same as today.
People got fatter and SUVs are more popular than cars. All gains in efficiency have been lost to bloat. Even cars weigh more nowadays with all those electronics and safety equipment.
@787brx8: I have a 1979 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser (station wagon) with a 350 Chevy engine and a decent carburetor which I've gotten at least 22 MPG in with a failing, slipping transmission, I'm sure once I can get a better transmission, I should be able to get at least 30 MPG. I also have a 1999 Suburban (lighter than my Olds) which struggles to get 15 MPG because it's computerized and fuel injected and has big exhaust restrictors called catalytic convertors, and it's transmission is in fine shape.
Brilliant idea!
Good review of basics now lets put it to work.
My brother worked for an LPG company in the 1970s. He could buy LP very cheap he converted his car to run on LP his mileage was much lower because the specific heat of LP is lower that gasoline but his cost per mile was better, just had to fill up more often. My point there is a lot more to the equation than you have stated.
If he had the compression ratio raised and retarded the ignition timing to TDC, he'd have gotten similar mpg and only a small drop in horsepower, unless we're talking diesel, that's different, you basically use a throttle body injection designed for LPG or LNG as an add-on to the diesel air intake and make sure there's computer adjustments able to be done on demand to get the best trade-off between power, mileage, and emissions.
So how does the pre-mixer maintain an adequate rate of combustible vapor flowing into the engine at all different engine loads and speeds? And how is an accurate air/fuel mixture maintained at all engine loads and speeds? And how do you prevent the pre-mixer and induction system from exploding if a misfire occurs and sends a flame backwards into the pre-mixer?
This is just a fancy vapor carb. The amount of air coming in determines how much fuel is vaporized. More airflow more vapor less load less vapor. It's load dependant. All vapor carbs are is a water bong. Your intake air tube will go through a small container of gas and bubbles releasing gas vapor. Hit hard you get a better hit. Take it easy it goes easy. Now on your fuel side out that is routed through your intake now not your injectors. Air and fuel all come together premixed. You get those little spark arrestors there likr a dollar it's basically fine screen meshing in the line if it back fires no problem. Your lawn mower probably has one you can take off it. You can build one of these for literally 20. You need a 2 gallon gas can, tubing for the intake and fuel and some gasket maker to seal the tubes that now protrude out your can. Flash arrested spark arrestor same thing different name cheap stick it in good to go.
All this one is, instead of putting the gas can under your hood and pulling the fuel pump fuse. He's made one where the fuel pump will add fuel to that tank slowly as its needed. F 150s get around 100mpg with them. 2 gallon gas tank under the hood is more the plenty
@@JamesSmith-lt5zz
Excellent my friend!
como lo hicistes ?
Es decir cada cuanto tiempo manda gasolina del tanque original a los otros ?
Colocastes algun flotante para medir el nivel ?
WOW….EXCELLENT teacher!!! This stuff is very difficult to learn...it takes years to do so and this man did it in one video. Just wow!!!! Thanks!!!!
What are you talking about he's using a totally misunderstood constructs and doing the simplest of understanding of a 4 cycle engine that I've seen in decades. And he's talking about a principle which has been used since at least the 1970s. Maybe you're new to this?
That is a good Idea, and I have personally proven that is works. This was many years ago when I was young and naive thinking I can save the world. The only problem with this approach is that by removing the liquid fuel and replacing it with the vapor/gas, you are reducing the cooling affect the liquid fuel has on the combustion chamber, thus over heating components such as piston rings and valves. Essentially the engine would self district in a short time. But the concept can be employed with the proper modification, which could be substantial.
I missed the "One Simple Trick" part.
"Simple"... That's what I was thinking!
ya where is the trick
The "trick" is in the click-bait title.
Richard Gieser me too I'm thinking click bait
@ Richard Gieser: LMAO ROFL thanx for saving me the time
wRONG !!!! THE GAS DOES NOT LUBRICATE THE PISTON !!!! tHINK ABOUT LPG !!
This is correct... too much fuel getting on the cylinder wall is very bad in modern engines as it washes the oil from the lubrication system off. the only time you want to run rich like that to lubricate is if you have a fuel that lubricates which gasoline does not, diesel even does not , the only real modern exception to this is 2 stroke gas engines such as in weedeaters and boats that have oil mixed in the fuel.
greenhouse gardenroom gas is a solvent it washes away the oil.rings get lubed up with oil pump in motion..
connecting rods have dipper/slinger or squirt holes that lube your cylinders rings wrist pins
diesel HAS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER LUBRICITY THAN (oops) gasoline.
Chase, Actually diesel is a light lubricant. In fact so much so that the high pressure injection pumps actually use it for .... you guessed it, lubrication.
At 20 atmospheres typical of top dead center pistons in a compression stroke, what keeps this vapegas from igniting prematurely diabatically or from afterburning igniting from the exhaust port? temperatures?
Does this work on any vehicle type or truck? Where can I purchase this product? How much is it?
80% of the video was a crash course of engine mechanics
I took six semesters of auto mechanics in the 1950's probably before you were born. Mr. Light, the instructor said the air/gas mixture in the cylinder, when fired by the spark plug does NOT explode, it BURNS. If it explodes you get spark knock. As far as for other uses such as in the kitchen, the Army has had gasoline fired stoves for decades where raw gas is vaporized and burned like natural gas, or propane. Too many other errors and false conclusions. Eh?
Can we use blower inside of fuel tank to get pressurize gasoline vapor ?
He is corrrct!! Gasoline liquid does not burn --- the vapors does !! Also gas burns. It does not explode.
How about diesel engines that don't have a spark plug. The fuel explode when compressed. Hit a book of matches with a hammer. Compression explodes matter.
My gas furnace is burning blue and so is my stove and oven
So that means I don't have to vent the burned gasses to the outside of my house because the blue flame is carbon monoxide free?
How can I fit this on my Harley? How streamlined can it be and still function at 80 to 100 mph? I'm sure lower speeds are easy to attain and maintain but highway speeds might be more difficult.
czcams.com/video/vQSWmjJPMck/video.html
My father invented something just like this back in the late 70’s. I can remember helping him build and install it. And when it was tested it did work. But when he applied for a patten he was turned down. For what reason I’m not sure. But my old man actually did this same thing. That makes me suspicious. To why his pattern Application was denied.
So instead of dropping the project couldn't he have just started making them and selling them? Just because you don't have a patent doesn't mean you can't do it. If someone else has it patented then he could have simply published his design and results and let the public make and install their own.
@@mboyer68 Yep, Michael, there's always a "catch". No "patten" granted! Ha HA HA HA HA That story reminds me of that fool Tom Ogle!~
To get a patent, very loosely speaking, you need a functional prototype and the idea has to be original. If something very similar was already patented, that would be why.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but vaporizing the gas and mixing with air is what the carburetors used to do. This sure seems like a very complicated way to do the same thing.
The idea is to do it more completely. Carbs still let raw fuel run into the cylinder. Some fuel is vaporized into a gas but some is still just small droplets.
+The End is Near, Prove it.
Haha. Carbs don't spray gas. They use the Venturi effect which causes vaporized gas to enter your cylinder.
Basically the same difference. The higher pressure inside the float bowl pushes fuel out where the wind shear blows the fuel droplets apart into very small droplets that all begin evaporating at that point in time. Same difference as a low pressure spray.
Seems to be a very simple way to me... try manufacturing a carburetor or a fuel injector!!!
this is a nice lecture in basic fire fighting and or ice operation. thank you. now I have a question about your subject matter. the heat and compression convert liquid fuels into gas to be ignited by spark. what process do you use prior to the intake stroke to be able to inject a gaseous fuel mixture? I see some unpleasant comments, but I am not contemptuous of your video. its a reasonable projection if the missing process is not more polluting or expensive. please respond. thanks.
That was on a par with Govt information films entitled how to take a door of its hinges and hide under it if nuclear war breaks out....
It works but has a big problem in that exhaust valves could not stand the heat produced. petrol is part of the cooling system. using propane cools the mix of gas and air and helps cool the valves. petrol gas would damage the exhaust valves. That is why an engine is tuned to use a certain amount of petrol and it is not advised to run lean.
Smoky Yunick did this in the 60's or 70's in Florida!
whatever happened to him? Is his method still in use?
Best damn garage in Daytona. He called it the homogenizer I think.
He got arkansided like Stan myers
czcams.com/video/oLCHc8kTmbU/video.html
He built an iron duke powered fiero that broke 100mpg
how can I use this to use in my car?
Look into vapor wick carburetors. Might be the simplest solution, but you have to watch out for flashback.
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
Great video, very educational.
What about the running lean issue? Without the raw fuel as a cylinder wall coolant, doesn't the engine overheat and starts giving us mechanical problems?
They would probably have to redesign and add all sorts of new ceramic sleeves and other exotic items to compensate for running under a lean burn system. Again adding more and more expense to today's vehicles.
The compression stroke heats the air and vaporizes the mist of fuel, no problem, so long as the mist is fine enough. Learn some thermodynamics and this would be obvious. Also at high pressure stuff burns a lot faster.
...ignites quicker.
No crude oil isn't a "fossil fuel". Do your research. God bless.
Right... Put a dinosaur in your tank. Put a sock in your mouth and stop spewing falsehoods. The earth makes it's own oil and not by some dead animal hypothesis millions of years ago.
Even the industry has called it fossil fuel for ages, we've known for decades its formed by algae but you don't hear big oil calling it algae fuel do we?
Todd Olson Yes you get a thumps up!!!
And this matters why?
@@toddolson573 Yep, they've forced that narrative into our throats for the last 150 years. At the rate he was talking about, there would have had to have been dinosaurs standing side by side all over the entire planet but then there's more, they would have needed to be about 200 dinosaurs high. And we'd still run out of fuel....
Smokey Unick has a US Patent on Hot vapor flow fuel technology based on the same concept. He built a fire with a vapor flow carb with rotating brushes to vaporize the fuel.
Smokey been dead 20 years.
Fossil fuel is comprised of hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon. Our engines burn the hydrogen and spit out the carbon, hence, pollution. If you use resonance (frequency) to separate water into hydroxide, your internal combustion engine will produce over 950 times the energy it took to produce the hydroxide, and you get the water back, to use over and over. Hydroxide is a unique fuel, in exact ratios it implodes, imbalance the ratios, or add ambient air, and it explodes.
Thank you for the video. i demonstrated the technology you speak of in this video, to my neighbors some years ago. Everyone oohed and awed, but not one of them did it for themselves. Indoctrination has deep effects.
what is the one simple trick
My truck burns straight veggie oil or diesel.
Changed nothing but rubber for poly fuel lines added more heater hose to warm a tank
Vapor carburetors have been around a long time, I actually built one and ran a lawn mower engine on vapor alone and it worked well, the downside I discovered was it basically distilled the fuel down the the non-burnable crap they leave in the gasoline. Vapor carbs do work, but mine was crude and you will need to be able to vaporize ALL the gasoline, including the somewhat non-burnable elements in the fuel.
My Older Bro. Put A Lawnmower carb on his car in mid 60s. It worked pretty good. But people called him Crazy. Just like several comments by readers.
thanks for the comments was able to stop video at 3 minute mark save some my life what i saw is what i already know
petrol does not burn as a liquid it has to be a vapour for ignition. A carburettor vaporise petrol using the venturi effect an injector vaporises petrol when its sprayed.
Chris Waddington to my knowledge sir any spray of liquid is still liquid even if its small droplets.vapour is something else.cheers
It does a poor job at at as most of the fluid is merely atomized, not vaporized as is commonly thought.
The venturi is to speed up the airflow across the jets, that lowers pressure, that draws the liquid in. The fuel is turned to vapor with heat, fuel evaporates faster as heat increases, it's vapor point is very low, well below the freezing point of water. Carburetors have trouble vaporizing the fuel with a cold engine hence the need for hot air pick up pipes, heated manifolds etc and the choke. Carburetors are particularly bad in cold weather and have to supply a very rich mixture to get enough vapor.
I can flick some water out of a faucet at you to cool you off or bounce the iceball I've had in the fridge for 6 months off your skull. You tell me there's no difference...after you get up and wipe your tears.
Atomize
Evaporation methods of fuel delivery were one of the first methods of fuel induction. The engine used in the wright flyer would be an example.
The first flights of the Wright Flyer were done without any throttle butterflys. Raw gas was in a tray in front of the intakes. The 4 cyl engine made 12 HP.
Thank you !!
Yes the log has propane cells that's the crackling sound you hear when it bursts and then burns.
OK, the physics make sense, but where do I find this "fuel saver" and how much and the "rest of the story"?
he can drive with ur watch time money he is getting from youtube.
you go fuck yourself watching non- common sense video like this...
i m stupid too....... just like u
yes i can sell you one send me $1,000,000.00 and i'll ship it to you. I promise.!!! ))))))
Note that in a reciprocating engine the pistons and connecting rods must accelerate to high speed and then stop twice per Revolution. This produces a lot of wasted energy. The pistons and rods get hot, and the heat must be dissipated in The radiator. However in a gas turbine the motion is always perpendicular to the force, so no work is done. We should all be driving gas turbines, with pressurized hydrogen as fuel.
You are sooo far from the truth...
Is there an attachment for Marine Diesel engines?
You are a genius!!!
any schematics or drawings on this device?
I say it's hogwash, why? because GM would be willing to pay a million dollars for ti. Then they would offer the device as an option on every new car sold and make millions of dollars off of it.
where do i buy it the convert kit ? is it possible to make it for a 15HP SMALL ENGINE ?
Couple questions; by introducing a gas you got rid of the lubrication cooling capacity of the fuel and did not address that. Also doesn’t the rapid compression of a produce enough heat to boil the gasoline...
So how do you keep the piston cool if there is no liquid gasonile to cool the sides of the cilinder wall ?
wake up teacher. The gasolene your talking about isn't a fossil fuel.
wow 😂
Of course you are right. Except do you have the knowledge that oil does not come from fossil and any automobile can run on water. How about large jet airliners really run on compressed air. How about we always had free energy. We have been lied to since the beginning.
compressed air for a air liner???
Drugs are bad M'kay...
Very entertaining to see this video and read the comments below as an chemical engineer. 😁
He is right! People have been killed by the top heads of gas companys. I have a friend that did what he talking about and got about 75 miles to a gal. There is a kit to do it now and think it was State Farm people who helped get this kit patented and put on the market!
WEll where do I buy the device?
PLANET X you don’t, you make it, there’s two types that use this idea the Pogue and ogle carbs
Wow, this guy cured my insomnia. 5 mins in and zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Zeek, is something we can purchase?
So can we buy the gas/air mixing solution?
Vaporize the fuel first with a vacumn chamber...then inject it into the piston chamber..then ignite it.. Much better fuel burn...better power...and a wider timing range....All vapor system ...vapor is all that will ignite fully😊
no explosions when converting liquid into gas?
No the liquid is converted to vapor and as it does it its temperature is dropped 180 degrees Fahrenheit which not ignite until enjected into the engine but a back flow vavle is a goog idea...burns like propane😊
@@perlitocabauatan9285 no but u should have a one way valve at the intake manifold it burns like propane with almost the same emissions
@@patrickgalloway5078 i am not about to convert liquid fuel to gas which is impractical and dangerous if done at home. i'd better buy it in canisters, if available like lpg. 100mpg? theoretical, not in the real world, right?
No its has to be converted just prior to injection to the engine and no it it not goiing to explode or anthing just the opisite it is too cold to ignite in atmospheric pressure and the vacum chamber can only implode due to a minus atmosophere.
no sorry ,the main efficiency loss in 4 strokes is the 3 parasitic cycles . You miss by miles
That's why it takes a moment for the engine to start. Spark = Heat to vaporize the gasoline into a gas. 2 or 3 rotations and enough heat has built up to ignite the GAS. Maybe if I put a heater on my gas tank, no danger there
It was mentioned better to conserve than to waste. The finance at whole was the denial to. Thanks.