|
#1
24th June 2016, 09:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Make Your Full-Size Car Get 200 MPG
Check out this info. If the videos don't work, do YouTube searches on the titles.
"Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58IkmPK6ikc This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95v-Ap5esI http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=1310 the truth about gas and vapor part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqKEQLBg6a8 the truth about gas and vapor part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDMDCT67xBM https://www.google.es/webhp?sourceid...+vaporized+gas https://www.google.es/webhp?sourceid...ed+gas+youtube http://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/2011/0...ue-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://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/...line_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/. http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/e...s/?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 500totalw/allthejunkyouhavetoassembletogetittowork.)Theywarn edmenottomakeittoopublic,becausetheotherinventorgo tthenoticeofsomeoilpeoplefromTexaswhocameupandgave himanoffertoassumehisinvention.Herefused.Hishomean dworkshopburneddown2dayslater!Hemovedtopartsunknow n.Ijustthoughtyoumightfinditinterestingtohearfroms omeonewhohasdonethisbefore.Mypointinthewholethingw as;“IfIcouldachieve80+mpgwithatotalof500 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Start watching this at the 2:00 time mark. Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ct05io8F9A If a gas engine will run on smoke, its running on gas fumes doesn't seem that improbable. I think engineers could work out all the bugs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this turns out to be true, the word should be spread far and wide. 
|
|
#3
24th June 2016, 12:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
24th June 2016, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
24th June 2016, 01:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There are countries where patent laws of other countries are ignored. These things don't get you 200 mpg in those countries either.
You seriously want to advertise your mental instability on the internet this way? Electric cars, which are 90 percent plus efficient don't get 200 mpg equivalent. See a shrink. Shit. Roswell has more credibility than this. Oswald not acting alone has more credibility than this.
|
|
#8
24th June 2016, 09:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Years ago my dad measured the power required to push a four door sedan down the road at 60 MPH.
It takes about 15 HP. 15 HP x (550 ft-lb/s/HP) = 8,250 ft-lb/s (8,250 ft-lb/s) / (777.64 ft-lb/s/BTU) = 10.61 BTU/s = 636.54 BTU/min 60 MPH = 1 mile/min (636.54 BTU/min) / (1 mile/min) = (636.54 BTU/mile) 1 gallon of gasoline produces about 114,000 BTU A modern car engine is about 20% efficient at converting heat into twist An automatic trans drivetrain is about 85% efficient from flywheel to road 114,000 BTU x 0.20 x 0.85 = 19,380 BTU/gal of mechanical work produced (19,380 BTU/gal) / (637 BTU/mile) = 30.4 MPG And that's the truth.
|
|
#9
24th June 2016, 10:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is an odd coincidence, because only yesterday I saw something on Facebook that wasn't about magic carburettors but was about hydrogen generation - not running the car directly on the hydrogen as you have to be seriously illiterate these days to believe that could possibly work, but using the hydrogen as a fuel additive to promote more complete combustion of the petrol (or diesel - it works on them too apparently).
Either through inefficient combustion, or as here a lack of vaporisation, these clowns would have you believe that a modern engine flings two-thirds of its fuel unburnt down the tailpipe.  I found a place near Plymouth, UK that sells HHO kits. While they're charging you five or six hundred pounds sterling for this, they're also warning you that: 1) Hydrogen on Demand is a new technology, which is still in its infancy. 2) All hydrogen cells produced/supplied by de Verde Limited, are prototypes. 3) Although good results have been achieved, no warranties can be given to the performance, as every vehicle is different. IOW: "If this doesn't work at all, it sure sucks to be you. LOL!"
|
|
#10
24th June 2016, 11:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Another con based on half truths and bullshit.
Straight chain hydrocarbons tend to burn faster and with less soot than hydrocarbon rings. You can also have hydrocarbon chains with carbon-carbon double bonds in them. Theoretically if you had a mix that was high in rings and double bonds, and somehow you could convert all that to straight chains, it would produce slightly more heat simply because you added some hydrogen atoms. The refinery typically does stuff like that at high pressure and temperature using fancy zeolite catylists. Because then they can charge a higher price for it. And they do it before the 10% ethanol gets mixed in. I'm pretty sure bubbling hydrogen through gasoline isn't going to do jack shit. Not to mention, gasoline is a specific mix. If you go changing the chemistry I strongly suspect it would do bad things to the octane rating. Sometimes you want slightly slower burning. I know it can be difficult to decide who to believe. But if its too good to be true, you can believe it's a scam. Last edited by Jaglavak; 24th June 2016 at 11:46 PM.
|
|
#11
25th June 2016, 02:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But then these geniuses tried pure hydrogen into the carb and were surprised that the car ran. Most people are idiots, or ignorant, but that's not why we don't use hydrogen as fuel. Of course BMW currently sells a car that runs on just hydrogen, but the gas crisis was solved in 1978 (car running on water) Why most people don't know this Trust me, the facts are the last thing that will matter in this
|
|
#13
25th June 2016, 12:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not to knock Jack, who is one of my favorite psychos, but currently the only bulk source of hydrogen is natural gas. When they take out the carbon, guess where it all goes. If we were making hydrogen out of water with nukes it would be a different story.
Meanwhile Sandia continues making progress on their new sunlight to diesel process. The process would also work using heat from, say, 4th generation nukes. Scaled up it might make diesel at a wild-ass-guess cost of $20/gallon. While that would definitely be a shot to the nads for the economy, it wouldn't be quite the apocolypse. If a trucking company currently spends 50% on fuel, an item that now costs $100 to ship would cost $400 to move. That would get very roughly a ton of goods moved 3000 miles. If that ton was televisions, the cost adder would be less than $5 per set. But a lot of heavier items would no longer move by long haul truck. At this juncture it should be pointed out that something like 80% of Europe's long haul railways are electrified. For less than what we pissed down the drain to bail out the banksters in '09, we could duplicate that system and power it from a fleet of 4th gen nukes. Zero emissions electric rail for commuters and heavy long haul, zero net emissions solar diesel for buses and local short haul, zero emissions nuke baseload power for the grid, we could solve our climate and energy problems with the change in our couch cushions. We are a pack of arrogant ignorant fools and future generations are definitely going to shit on our graves.
|
|
#14
26th June 2016, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M http://aulis.com/mythbusters.htm An objective party would have tried to duplicate the use of gas vapor according to the instructions of the people in the videos.
|
|
#17
27th June 2016, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
27th June 2016, 11:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's telling that the OP made passing reference to the "permanent magnet motor". This is another perpetual-motion machine, isn't it?
|
|
#19
27th June 2016, 12:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway, there are a lot of issues with how to keep these things at the right temperature, you have to recharge the acid solution, the plates get scrunged out and used up and it's not really practical for most cars so we gave it up--but there are still some of the prototypes running around the PNW and they're still working, far as I know. It was an interesting project, too bad it didn't work better.
|
|
#20
27th June 2016, 12:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay Aleq, I don't want to bust your bubble or nothin', but if you're cracking water and using the hydrogen as fuel then you are absolutely not, First Law of Thermodynamics absolutely not, getting more power out of the hydrogen than you put into cracking the water.
Again, I'm having trouble crediting that even an old engine is burning its fuel so wastefully that a small amount of Brown's Gas will improve the burn to the extent that the engine's efficiency goes up by a useful amount. That's the only way in which there could be possibly any benefit at all - and then the issue with a new computer-controlled engine would not be that the computer "adjusts for the extra bang" but that the burn is already as clean as the manufacturer can get it. Still, no doubt the reproducible results are out there...?
|
|
#21
27th June 2016, 01:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, hydrogen has an extremely high octane rating and burns just fine in a regular engine. And any fuel provided in the form of hydrogen will reduce the amount of gasoline needed and so improve the gasoline mileage. But as you said, the energy to create the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and for a mobile application that means a mobile fuel source. Storing compressed hydrogen is a royal bitch, and being the lightest element it takes up a lot of room even at extreme pressures. There has been a lot of interesting work on using chemical storage methods. And also some work on adsorbtion/desorption using extremely high surface area solid foams. But so far nothing is ready for prime time and I'm not holding my breath.
It's not about the particular chemistry of this or that approach. Heck, we could even burn anhydrous ammonia for motor fuel if we want. The point is where does that energy come from, and how do we get it to where it needs to go? Currently the only viable option is some kind of burnable fuel, and currently nearly all of it comes out of an oil well. And that is the road straight to hell for all mankind, not to mention mother nature. When we get desperate enough to transfer over to synthetic liquids the cost of fuel will jump by a factor of four or five. This will lead to many squeals of pain but not TEOTWAWKI. Of course by then we'll be in for a 10,000 year steam bath. There are also serious proposals to electrify the truck fleet using fancy versions of the overhead pantograph system used by trains, only with modern electronic controls. Trucks going down a steep grade could feed power back to trucks climbing the other side, so they would be built in mountainous areas first. A smaller diesel engine would provide power for non-electrified areas or if the pantograph jumps the power lines. The barrier to this approach is mostly regulatory, plus it would need a serious kickstart from the feds in the form of built power lines.
|
|
#22
27th June 2016, 04:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, cars have alternators and they produce electricity all the time anyway while the engine's running so you aren't using extra gas to run the generator--it was on a 20A fuse and didn't pull much in the way of electricity. We did a fair amount of experimenting with the plates to find just the right thickness of steel and with the best configuration they'd produce a pretty impressive amount of hydrogen and oxygen. Then when you feed that in, the oxygen improves the burn on the gasoline a bit and the hydrogen gives a decent amount of bang and on the right vehicle it did pretty well. We had an old Ford F-150 getting 30mpg on the regular and a couple of propane converted vehicles that also did pretty well. It was the darned OBD II computers that would just compensate for the extra bang, did no good in a newer car which means for all practical purposes it's just an interesting toy but they did work on the right vehicle. We had test data and shit but dayum, that was ten years ago and I was in charge of the supply line and keeping costs contained, along with any writing and editing that needed doing so if you're looking for hard numbers you're looking at the wrong chick. I also assembled a bunch of the things, quite fiddly, and ran the drill press and shit--we figured out that 3" ABS pipe would handle the heat flex best so they ended up being neat little self contained canisters with just two stainless bolts coming through the top cap to attach the wires to and a fitting for the tubing to route the gas to the mass air intake. It was an interesting interlude, I learned a lot of really random stuff.
|
|
#25
27th June 2016, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I get that you just worked in the office and pushed the papers and don't understand the technical aspects, but in that case I don't think you've got much input to what is basically a technical discussion. 
|
|
#26
28th June 2016, 09:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Except for the fact that I also helped fab out the one that was contained in a transparent container and those little fuckers would put out a very firecrackery bunch of big bubbles. Wave a BBQ lighter over the top of the tube at the top and you'll get a loudass BANG couple times a second. I don't recall the output in liters/minute of fractioned off gases but it was more than you'd think--the surface area of 8 plates about 2x4" is pretty substantial and it would fizz like a mofo when it got up to speed. I didn't just work in the office, there was no office, we were working out of his garage space (career self employed mechanic, took a year off to see if he could make this thing prove out) and to this day I have a pair of Carhartt jeans with ABS glue patches on the knees from assembling the suckers by hand. I'm a really good procurement person, managed to get the cost per unit down by about 75% over where he estimated it because I know how to shop and we were looking at having blow molded canisters made so we didn't have to cut and drill ABS pieces. The principle is sound, it would have been gangbusters back during the first gas crisis when cars were carbureted and couldn't compensate for the extra bang coming in the top end.
Since of the two of us I'm the one who actually spent eight months working on this problem day in and day out I'll have to ask that the condescension be dialled back just a tad from the person who has never actually seen the concept in action.
|
|
#27
28th June 2016, 11:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You're right, I haven't seen this concept in action. I never saw Jack Nicholson's amazing water-powered car either, much less worked on it, and I haven't seen a magnet motor or any other perpetual-motion device, and I haven't administered a Ponzi scheme either. I still have the basic smarts and scientific education to know that energy doesn't come out of nowhere and neither does money.
Equally, I know enough high-school science to understand perfectly well, without seeing this instance, that if you drop electrodes into acidulated water and run a current through it, hydrogen and oxygen will be evolved – or, to use your technical term, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
See, I can understand all of this perfectly well without needing to see it, and if I appeared condescending, well, you gave me to understand that your role in this was mainly administrative with a little hands-on assembly, and if I was wrong in thinking that your admin activities would have been in an actual office, well again, I was mistaken about the location but not the nature of the work. Assembling stuff doesn't call for much understanding. I had a summer job in a machine shop these many years ago and all I needed to know was which box to get the lumps of metal on, which way round to put them in the jig, which handle to pull, and which box to put the finished work in. What the hunks of metal were even for, still less the design principles behind the machine they were part of, was utterly beyond my ken and something I didn't need to know. But I did become intimately acquainted with cutting my hands to pieces on swarf, so there's that. The point is that you've not demonstrated in any way, shape or form that Quote:
|
|
#29
29th June 2016, 08:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
First off, I think I've made it very clear that the energy doesn't come "from nothing," it comes from the alternator of the car which, if you'll notice, is always charging when your car is operating. Perhaps you believe that playing the car stereo or charging your phone makes your mileage go down, but I can't help you with that.
My friend had been tinkering with designs for years just noodling around and eventually came up with one that produced a respectable output in a small package. We produced, assembled and sold about 250 units and installed at cost with the proviso that the purchaser furnish us with gas mileage information on an ongoing basis so we could establish out in the wild whether or not the generators would give enough of a boost to MPG to make the initial cost worthwhile. From the data gathered at this stage we established that as a raw package the application would only be of benefit to those with older cars that don't have an onboard computer monitoring fuel mixture and compensating for any augmentation--therefore, without a modification to the EPROM onboard the car it wasn't going to be feasible for any vehicle that didn't qualify as a "classic" car. Not to mention any possible warranty issues--and once you get into OBD-II the computers got really smart and it was going to be an endless headache to try to circumvent the programming of a huge range of vehicles. We had some venture capitalists interested in the whole thing but they basically wanted an unrealistic production schedule and they would have ended up owning the whole thing--we all talked it over and decided to turn them down because getting into wrestling with the whole emissions computer thing was going to have too many ramifications what with EPA regs and the like and we didn't want to risk people not being able to pass a smog check because of a thrown code. In an older carbureted or early fuel injected vehicle, adding oxygen does improve fuel burn and cleans up emissions--tailpipe sniffer monitoring the output as the HHO generator was enabled and disabled clearly showed it. We had some good solid data that showed a goodly range of vehicles and engine types benefiting from the extra boost from the hydrogen--no, you can't run a car on water but you can augment a gas or diesel or propane powered vehicle and have the parasitic electrical power convert into a usable amount of fuel for the engine to access, which ups the gas mileage. My friend put two of the HHO generators onto a mid-80s Ford F150 pickup and, especially on long trips when the generators could get up to operating temp and stay there, could get MPG up into the 35+ range. If you've ever owned an older Ford truck, this will be a meaningful bit of information. The mid 70s Mercedes was also a standout, going from an average of about 15-18 MPG to a personal best of 40--again, on a longer trip. So, as I think I've stated quite firmly from the get go of my involvement in this thread, it's a valid and firmly scientifically proven process that, unfortunately, has limited real world application given the small pool of vehicles that would really benefit from it. A curiousity in the 21st century that would have been pretty fucking cool if we'd been able to jump on it 25 years earlier. When we were in high school.
|
|
#30
29th June 2016, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You don't seem overly clear on how much current the gasificator is drawing, but for certain sure, every horsepower you'd be looking to make by burning hydrogen would be a horsepower plus a bit more over that you would be using to drive the alternator. Ye canna change the laws o' physics. Otherwise we're left with this idea that older cars were incredibly wasteful of fuel and adding a little Brown's Gas to the intake miraculously cured this, which at least doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics but needs experimentally verifying by something a little more rigorous than "wow, man, this dude I knew totally had this game-changing piece of tech, but it won't work now because computers and shit". How much oxygen are we talking here? Let's consider a 4-liter engine turning at... oh, say, 1500 rpm. Then we're putting 4 liters of air through it every other revolution, that's 4 x 750 = 3000 liters of air per minute. How's that compare with the amount of gas being made by a "little fucker putting out a very firecrackery bunch of big bubbles"? Ballpark figure?
|
|
#31
29th June 2016, 12:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
29th June 2016, 03:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yeah, fuck me for bringing in an interesting (I hope) anecdote that's germane to the OP, such as it is, about a real lived experience I had. No, can't just leave it at "Huh, interesting, didn't know anyone had ever really tried this stuff out, thought it was 100% an internet scam, learn something new every day," the deceased equine apparently requires chastising so here we are. Some people can fuck up a wet dream.
|
|
#34
1st July 2016, 01:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
 |
| Giraffiti |
| Mmmm - snake oil, rumor = truth |
|
|
Linear Mode
