Make Your Full-Size Car Get 200 MPG

F

FatFreddy

Registered Senior Member
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"

This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline.

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=1310

the truth about gas and vapor part 1

the truth about gas and vapor part 2

https://www.google.es/webhp?sourcei...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+gas

https://www.google.es/webhp?sourcei...UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+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/2011/09/200-mpg-pogue-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/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_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://www.google.es/?gws_rd=ssl#q=...ficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?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 $500 total w/ all the junk you have to assemble to get it to work.) They warned me not to make it too public, because the other inventor got the notice of some oil people from Texas who came up and gave him an offer to assume his invention. He refused. His home and workshop burned down 2 days later! He moved to parts unknown.
I just thought you might find it interesting to hear from someone who has done this before. My point in the whole thing was; “If I could achieve 80+ mpg with a total of $500 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

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.
 
Nah, there is no point. A waste of my time. You just continue to believe whatever you want.
 
FatFreddy said:
Ron Brandt is the inventor of the perm-mag motor.
When he was a young man, he invented a 90-mpg carburetor.
Click to expand...
I have a car that gets 150mpg equivalent. I hope they don't come and kill me! If I suddenly stop posting it will be PROOF that the government wants to cover up the FACTS!
 
billvon said:
I have a car that gets 150mpg equivalent. I hope they don't come and kill me! If I suddenly stop posting it will be PROOF that the government wants to cover up the FACTS!
Click to expand...
What are you driving?
 
I only skimmed pogue's collection of articles and gathered he used ultra sonic energy to make smaller droplets of fuel and does not tell what extra energy that required. A big drop, broken into many smaller drops does have more surface and there is a surface energy increase (more caloric fuel) but true vaporization would not be achieved - heat is required. However, I doubt he is "running on vapor" but smaller drops will vaporize more rapid in a hot environment (like inside a cylinder with combustion taking place). That will increase the pressure on the piston sooner. One of his articles did use "pre-heating" to run the engine on vapor, but again no mention, I saw in my skim, of how much thermal energy was used to make genuine vapor rather than just finer drop size.

I strongly doubt there is any significant amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust as claimed of a modern car, well tuned up. There is so much heat released in the cylinder that they need external water cooling. Many years ago on my first car, I thought: Why not put some water drops inside the cylinder to better utilize the excess heat released by combustion of the fuel, and I tried that, but too crudely to make any confirmed gain.

My summer job after freshman year in college was working for the Lion Oil Co. in Eldorado Arkansas, slightly more than 100 miles from Little Rock, where I went on week-ends to get home cooked food and clean laundry. I filled (and latter re-filled) the gas tank always with car in same position at same two pumps, (one at start and one at end of trip just outside Little Rock) carefully dropping in the last drops until the liquid level just came to the scratch mark I had made inside the filler tube. I noted the humidity of the air and always tried to go at 50mph, so never got behind another car, leaving after dark about 9PM kept traffic to near zero and let me keep all windows closed as by then the air was cooler. There was only one stop light on my route, and I always came to full stop, even if it was green.

Lion Oil had a dynamonitor engine test facility, that replace the spark plugs after 100 miles equivalent running. They gave me the barely used plugs for each trip. They were very clean still and I checked the gap, re-setting it if was not normal. My wet towel, one end in water, the intake air passed thru did not make any noticeable difference (some trips sucked the combustion air thru a dry towel). Near the end of that summer, I did note that high air humidity, especially driving thru light rain, did get better fuel economy.

I am convinced, a second fine water spray injector operating when the piston had moved down about 10% of its downward stroke could increase fuel mileage by a significant amount. Expanding to vapor some fine water droplets, inside cylinder and leaving less heat in the exhaust, would increase the pressure on piston top for the last 80% of the down stroke, to make better fuel economy. I don't think any system that requires extra heat energy for per-vaporization can. For net gain you must use a small part of the heat the would otherwise be dumped out with the exhaust to do more work on the downward moving piston.
 
Billy T said:
I only skimmed pogue's collection of articles and gathered he used ultra sonic energy to make smaller droplets of fuel and does not tell what extra energy that required. A big drop, broken into many smaller drops does have more surface and there is a surface energy increase (more caloric fuel) but true vaporization would not be achieved - heat is required. However, I doubt he is "running on vapor" but smaller drops will vaporize more rapid in a hot environment (like inside a cylinder with combustion taking place). That will increase the pressure on the piston sooner. One of his articles did use "pre-heating" to run the engine on vapor, but again no mention, I saw in my skim, of how much thermal energy was used to make genuine vapor rather than just finer drop size.

I strongly doubt there is any significant amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust as claimed of a modern car, well tuned up. There is so much heat released in the cylinder that they need external water cooling. Many years ago on my first car, I thought: Why not put some water drops inside the cylinder to better utilize the excess heat released by combustion of the fuel, and I tried that, but too crudely to make any confirmed gain.

My summer job after freshman year in college was working for the Lion Oil Co. in Eldorado Arkansas, slightly more than 100 miles from Little Rock, where I went on week-ends to get home cooked food and clean laundry. I filled (and latter re-filled) the gas tank always with car in same position at same two pumps, (one at start and one at end of trip just outside Little Rock) carefully dropping in the last drops until the liquid level just came to the scratch mark I had made inside the filler tube. I noted the humidity of the air and always tried to go at 50mph, so never got behind another car, leaving after dark about 9PM kept traffic to near zero and let me keep all windows closed as by then the air was cooler. There was only one stop light on my route, and I always came to full stop, even if it was green.

Lion Oil had a dynamonitor engine test facility, that replace the spark plugs after 100 miles equivalent running. They gave me the barely used plugs for each trip. They were very clean still and I checked the gap, re-setting it if was not normal. My wet towel, one end in water, the intake air passed thru did not make any noticeable difference (some trips sucked the combustion air thru a dry towel). Near the end of that summer, I did note that high air humidity, especially driving thru light rain, did get better fuel economy.

I am convinced, a second fine water spray injector operating when the piston had moved down about 10% of its downward stroke could increase fuel mileage by a significant amount. Expanding to vapor some fine water droplets, inside cylinder and leaving less heat in the exhaust, would increase the pressure on piston top for the last 80% of the down stroke, to make better fuel economy. I don't think any system that requires extra heat energy for per-vaporization can. For net gain you must use a small part of the heat the would otherwise be dumped out with the exhaust to do more work on the downward moving piston.
Click to expand...

Water injection has certainly been studied by engine manufacturers. During my time working in the lubricants business, several of the marine diesel makers were looking at this, mainly as a way to avoid the very high cylinder gas temperatures that lead to NOx emission. But I think a small efficiency gain was found as well. Of course those engines also often has an energy recovery turbine in the exhaust - they were already at about 55% efficiency - pretty good for a heat engine.

But so far I think they have found that the complexity of the water injection system does not warrant commercialising it.

But the claim in the OP that you can get "5 times" the mileage by using vapour is obvious lies, given that engine efficiency is already 20-30%. To get 5 times this you would need an efficiency >100%! How f'ing stupid can you get? (rhetorical :D)
 
Billy T said:
I am convinced, a second fine water spray injector operating when the piston had moved down about 10% of its downward stroke could increase fuel mileage by a significant amount. Expanding to vapor some fine water droplets, inside cylinder and leaving less heat in the exhaust, would increase the pressure on piston top for the last 80% of the down stroke, to make better fuel economy.
Click to expand...
Water injection systems have been used for decades on everything from race cars to World War II fighter planes. They do indeed increase performance in many cases by allowing higher compression with lower octane fuels, but they do not significantly improve fuel economy over other (simpler) strategies like Atkinson cycle combustion.
 
billvon said:
Water injection systems have been used for decades on everything from race cars to World War II fighter planes. They do indeed increase performance in many cases by allowing higher compression with lower octane fuels, but they do not significantly improve fuel economy over other (simpler) strategies like Atkinson cycle combustion.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I did not know of the Atkinson cycle, but wiki has very well ilustrated article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
 
We can run a Toyota Prius for about 3 months without filling up. However, we do plug it in at night :) Oh, and there's 'free' charging stations all over Japan complimentary. Like at the shopping mall, or the park, airport, etc....
 
Too bad that Mythbusters TV show is no more. This 'myth' would be a perfect thing for them to test.
 
The thing is that when you inject fuel into the cylinder, due to the heat and the pressure, the gas instantly vaporizes. The cylinder chamber is about 200C and the gasoline is introduced at about atmospheric pressure. So starting with vapor is a stupid idea. To get the same amount of vapor into the cylinder as you do when you start with liquid you would have to have to compress the vapor at a high pressure which is just a waste of energy.
 
Last edited:
origin said:
The thing is that when you inject fuel into the cylinder, due to the heat and the pressure, the gas instantly vaporizes. The cylinder chamber is about 200C and the gasoline is introduced at about atmospheric pressure. So starting with vapor is a stupid idea. To get the same amount of vapor into the cylinder as you do when you start with liquid you would have to have to compress the vapor at a high pressure which is just a waste of energy.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think you need to do this. In commercial gas engines you certainly can inject the gas under pressure, but you can also have a venturi system in the inlet, in place of the carburettor of a conventional gasoline engine. But certainly, the notion that there is any great advantage in using pre-vaporised fuel is ridiculous. It's just a scam for credulous people. (I don't think Fat Freddy believes in it either, any more than he believes in all that conspiracy stuff about faked moon landings. I suspect all this is just his way to annoy the scientifically literate.)
 
Audi just designed a gas engine that uses variable compression (along with the standard variable valve timing and fuel injection).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top