gas fumes

[kevinsatterfield]

[adam666]

see thrivals vapor carb.....

I think, 'back in the day' the vapor carb wouldve been a big thing! but now that computer control is the dominant force the actual increase in efficiency is minute.

older cars would still possibly benefit in addition of a vapor carb though?

[pertyfly]

I agree with your statements, however.....

I also believe that with some modification, a vapor carb can be more beneficial than the existing systems we have with the electronics. The key is to get it to run consistently lean. I know, I know...lean=bad

But rich=bad too! Soo....why is it that lean is bad? anyone?

This would be (mostly) because the lean condition won't cool your explosion contact surfaces. Cyl, piston, etc. When it's not cooling, and consistently running hot, it has a tendency to overheat, and melt the pistons and things. This is why people don't just turn their carbs back to run rich.

However, I also believe that running fumes makes the fuel more uniform, so less fuel is no longer "lean" it's just the right amount, but in a more usable, combustible form. As I stated in another thread, currently the excess, liquid fuel is pretty much just to cool everything, absorb heat, and it burns a bit more through the stroke, and in the cat (adding nothing but bad emissions).

Now, I know I seem to be pushing this water injection thing, but that is (at this point in time) the best thing I can think of to do the job of cooling everything, and at the same time add some power.

Do, yes, fumes alone in your standard configuration, probably will not realise a HUGE benefit compared to modern injection systems (as it will need to run rich to run properly as well). But, like I said, we need to run it leaner and cool...that is the key.

[adam666]

agreed, was going to add a water injection system would prolly benefit as well.

hell, any car seems to benefit from water injection!

[jjbeamish]

[zipster]

Gasoline liquid injected into an engine has to be at a specific ratio to burn. 14.7 to 1. This ratio is not correct for vapor fuel.
Think of it this way, liquids do not burn, we burn the vapors off of the liquid. Try lighting diesel fuel, it is very difficult to light. But suspend it in air in tiny droplets, WHOOSH it burns. It needs the air around it to ignite. I have not tried the match thrown into gas and it goes out. If you do not ingite the fumes, it should go out. I am working on a vapor carb like alaskastars. I like thrivals design, except for all that plastic, but hey we are experimenting, we have to cut costs.

[zipster]

sorry forgot look up Tom Ogle.

[Pinhead]

As already been stated, liquid fuel doesn't burn. the 14.7:1 ratio is actually 14.7 parts air and 1 part vaporized fuel.

Read this article that I wrote about combustion theory, fuel homoginization, vaporization, running lean, and compression.

http://mpgresearch.com/viewtopic.php?t=824&highlight=

The Singh Groove allows the normal A/F ratio to run "leaner" because most of the fuel that would normally be a liquid is vaporized and burned.

www.somender-singh.com

[zipster]

I just buit the vapor carb ammo box like alaskastar. I used an army ammo can, pig mats, 3/4 heater hose, and my snow blower. The snow blower is a 5 hp techumsa, I drained the gas, and ran it till it died. removed the cover on the carb, put the heater hose in the carb opening. drilled two holes in the ammo can on opposite ends, put in the pig mats standing on end. added 12 oz of gasoline. To my suprise the engine ran very nice. The head temp was 245 deg, and the exhaust was 380 deg. After runnig for 22 to 25 minutes, I removed the spark plug and it lookes cleaner than before. Just to varify it was running on vapors, I opened the ammo can. The enginbe died out. I closed the can and pulled the starter cord one time and the engine came back to life. I started and shut off the engine several times to test the restarting ability. I am dumbfounded that this worked out so well. Next I am going to build a system for my lawn mower. Then a car.

[AlaskaStar]

A Gallon of Gasoline converted from Liquid Gasoline into VAPOR or GASEOUS Gasoline, will in effect produce ~6144 CUBIC FEET of burnable fuel.

1 Gallon LIQUID equals 230 Cubic INCHES displacement for displacement.

1728 Cubic Inches= 1 Cubic Foot.

6144 Cubic feet=10,616,832 Cubic Inches.

now figure out a Chevy V8 350 CID=0.20254 Cubic feet TOTAL DISPLACEMENT. so, WHy put a 600 CUBIC FOOT PER MINUTE CARBURETOR on an engine that is only 1/5 of a cubic foot in size? that means that the carburetor is made to handle three thousand times that engine size. does anyone here see a waste of fuel?

AlaskaStar

[AlaskaStar]

sorry, but in effect, this means that a gallon of fuel properly vaporized, will make the equivelant burn of 46,160 Gallons worth of displacement in the way of fuel. does anyone other than me soo the potential for easily exceeding 200 Miles per gallon on a car? how about 400 miles per gallon?

your car is a simple RPM based Ground rolling tranportation system. RPM of the engine through the transmission, rear-diff or front final drive in the transaxle, and out to the wheels. my 1 ton truck with 16 inch wheels has a WHEEL ROTATION SPEED (RPM) of ONLY 660 RPM's at 60 MPH. so, why must my engine spin at 2300 RPM's when my wheels are only moving along at 660, and even further, things in otion, stay in motion, and my laod stabilized and constant, I see some real issues here.

Bluntly put, the automobile you and I drive is a pure SCAM. they know all the physics, and dynamics of what you are driving, and they know full well that simple changes in operation or design will effect higher efficiency standards. so, why bother to put this crap out?

simple. peple buy what they put out, no questions, no demands for someting better. we are foolish enough to just purchase what they give us.

OFF SOAPBOX.

AlaskaStar

[waterbard]

Alaskastar:

I have an alterative design to the wicking carb that I was thinking about.

It goes a little like this:

-3/4" ID gas hose
-Its conductive(antistatic)
-It can be under pressure
-non corrosive
-heat resistant

take 1 yard of the hose, and wrap it around a 1' 3/4" steel pipe. The vortex created does a couple of things I think. It assists in vaporizing the fuel, in a vortex motion, so as it hits the carb/FI port, it is traveling in a vortex already. It also reduces the risk of having a high volume container full of vapor. You can reduce the hose to a 1/2 brass fitting with a flashback arrestor. But as we know about gasses, a restrictive exit port on a hose doesn't help with vaporization at all.

This would eliminate the need for wicking I think, and a waterjar flashback arrestor.

I was thinking about hooking it directly to the fuel line, with the primary arrestor right after the fuel filter, and right before the rubber hose.

I am thinking that perhaps the pressure resistance created by the spun hose, 2 flashback arrestors, and a resistance container to only allow pooling of gas in the inline fuel filter might be enough to allow fumes to to pass through. There will be a suction created from the intake obviously.

Varnish residues. Well, I have been thinking about this, and it is a well known fact that ethanol breaks down varnish deposits, so why not run E-85? Or perhaps a 50/50 blend with gasoline and ethanol?

Just thinking out loud here.

[waterbard]

[ClayWade]

[waterbard]