A practical way to vaporize fuel for high MPG?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NTL2009
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engine efficiency
NTL2009
Messages
624
Reaction score
384
TL;DR Summary
For an automobile ICE, could gasoline be vaporized with a hot plate in a small chamber just before the intake valve to improve mpg at cruising speeds?
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved.



He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been realized. The car appears to vaporize the fuel (versus atomizing in a conventional carburetor or fuel injector). He claims a fully vaporized fuel is homogeneous, which burns faster and cleaner with no pockets of lean/rich, and can theoretically run lean, 40:1 ( versus a conventional ~ 22:1 limit ?). He doesn't mention, but I assume there is much lower throttle pumping loss for better mpg.

While he acknowledges it could be done, he says one drawback is very poor performance. I think because vaporized fuel takes up a large volume, so you can only get a relatively small amount of fuel in a cylinder, so limited power. And I think that is why a large V8 was used. That also makes sense from a Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) viewpoint - that big V8 running near open throttle and near full load (at reduced horsepower) would put the engine at an efficient part of the curve. Of course, you can get high mpg by trading acceleration and using a small conventional engine, but you wouldn't get the claimed advantages of fuel vaporization.

OK, so acceleration would be unacceptable. He goes on to say this could be addressed by using fuel injection to accelerate and start the engine, but he seems to poo-poo this as being too complex, and fuel vapors are unsafe. But I think he overstates this. Could there be a pre-combustion chamber on each cylinder, maybe the same volume of the cylinder, or somewhat larger, to hold a supply of vaporized fuel? I could envision a hot plate in that chamber (before the intake valve), and a fuel injector spraying a fine mist onto the hot plate to vaporize that fuel. It would supply just enough fuel for cruising power, the rest of the fuel for acceleration would be supplied by a separate injector that would not cool the plate. The fuel would have time to vaporize as it would be a continuous process. For a pre-combustion chamber the same size as the cylinder, assume 1800 RPM at cruise, at 2 revs per combustion, so 1800/60 = 30 revs/second, so ~ 1/15th of a second (67 ms) to vaporize the fuel. And at 100 mpg and 60 mph ( 1 mile-per-minute), that's 1/100th of a gallon per minute (let's switch to metric at this point!) or ~ 38 ml, divide by 4 cylinders, round to 10 ml, divide by 60 for 0.167 ml/second. I assume that would be do-able, but don't really know. I don't see where this would be a big safety issue, or overly complex.

A pre-combustion chamber would also address the issue he raises that not all components of the fuel vaporize at the same temperature. He claims these components would build up, and have to be drained collected - which would be impractical. But with the pre-combustion chamber, anything not fully vaporized would just be drawn into the engine in atomized form. I don't see a problem here. He seems to be envisioning a large chamber of vaporized fuel supplying all cylinders.

But, it seems we would still need a large displacement engine to get enough horsepower even for cruising speeds due to the volume of the vaporized fuel. That would be a major disadvantage. As I understand, 0.5 L per cylinder is a sort of practical limit for passenger cars engines, and moving to a V8 would be impractical in cost and size for most cars today. Would a supercharger be able to compensate for this, forcing more air/fuel into the cylinder, so maybe a 4 cylinder or V6 could work? Pollution control is another whole story.

Also, for reference, vaporization was used in some early stationary engines (“surface plate carburetor), so it's far from a new idea. But I also wonder, wouldn't running from propane or methane provide similar benefits as attributed to vaporizing gasoline? It's vapor already, right? And flex -fuel engines exist, but I never heard that they run higher efficiency on vapor?

This is really just a mental exercise / thought experiment. But that video made me very curious. Thoughts?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Lnewqban said:
One problem has been keeping the fuel from reaching the boiling point in hot conditions.
Please, see:
https://www.onallcylinders.com/2015...erstanding-vapor-lock-and-how-you-can-fix-it/
But the vaporization would occur right at the cylinder intake, so really no different from avoiding vapor lock in fuel injected engines today. You keep the fuel liquid up to the injector that would inject fuel onto the hot-plate.
 
Boomer here.. I've seen countless claims of incredible fuel mileage claims over the years. Most are hyping and selling some sort of gizmo technology that does these amazing things. Classic pitches are that the oil companies bought the patent and have buried or hidden the technology due to greed, etc.. The vaporization claim is a common snake oil pitch. I can assure everybody that 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch is just not going to happen - maybe if the drive is down hill for miles and miles the the car coasts at 120 mph while the engine idles.

The law of physics apply here.. there's only so energy that can converted into mechanical motion via. a reciprocating four stoke engine and driving several thousand pounds of mass down the road.

Don't fall for the miracle fuel milage gizmo con folks.

However if anybody is interested I can post a solution that could increase your fuel milage by up to 10% - I'll post the solution for free.... Cheap using a common household supplies. please, please ask....
 
NTL2009 said:
But the vaporization would occur right at the cylinder intake, so really no different from avoiding vapor lock in fuel injected engines today. You keep the fuel liquid up to the injector that would inject fuel onto the hot-plate.
In that case, the solution can't be applied to modern direct injection into the combustion chamber, only to carburetors and injection into intake manifold.
Then, expect a slight increase in the volume and pressure of the heated mix, both of which should be working against the airflow and cylinders filling in natural aspired engines.

Simultaneously, taking thermal energy away from the exhaust gases in the heating device may induce problems with condensation of corrosive vapors in the exhaust system.

There is no much more to squeeze out of this old invention that is the IC engine.
In my personal experience, the surest way of saving fuel has been improving planning, reducing accelerations and speeds, and avoiding unnecessary braking and trips. :smile:
 
My guess is that the engine employed a gas mixer, like on an LPG fuelled vehicle, but produced the gas by boiling high octane gasoline. It is just possible, that it was economic, but with such poor performance, it would be a hazard on the road. Maybe, isolating half the cylinders was employed to halve the engine capacity, to reduce the fuel required.

"Lean burn" gasoline engines, like diesels, run cool, are low NOx, but they are not pollution free. It could not operate under today's emission control laws.

The art of good story telling, involves releasing a minimum of information, and keeping secrets right up to the end. The inventor kept the secret, he claimed it was worth a million dollars, but then he died following a mysterious gunshot wound.
 
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Back
Top