When a fuel injector sprays in the fuel it is atomized to very very small parts. To get a more efficient explosion you want a good mix of air and fuel. The vapor does this but so does the very very fine mist. You see there is no special thing about something that is a gas phase or in a liquid phase except the spacing of the molecules. Once you split up the material and combust it, as long as the mix is good, the burn is efficient. Basically the reason the vapor system was good back then was because a carb just dump liquid fuel in the combustion chamber and it rolls down. The bottom line is if you really wanted to make cars powder by a gas there are much better options then gasoline. Gasonline is chemically formulated to be stable as a liquid. Propane or methane would be a much better choice. You would not need a vaporizer and they are much cleaner burning that gas.
Why does it seem like DD always runs with an idea even though the drawbacks/negatives of that idea/plan have been explained by multiple posters?
DaDakota's energy policy means gas would just be $15/gallon. Just because an engine gets more efficient it doesn't mean prices will drop for the adjustment.
I haven't seen a real argument yet, on this issue, based on the system used. All the counter arguments deal with why modern technology isn't as good as the Ogle system. I haven't read any info yet, so this is all my initial thinking.... From what I've heard, the system was too dangerous to be used by the public (my Grandfather mentioned this to me a long time ago), essentially having a bomb on top of the engine, since the fuel was vaporized/mixed OUTSIDE of the combustion chamber, rather than inside the combustion chamber on the modern engine. From a short search on the net, http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/FEV-carb-Tom-Ogle-1977.php , that is eluded to in the article.
Why do people fail to discuss the topic...and just say "it is impossible".....Yet, this guy did it. He DID IT !!!! It was reported on, tested, and proven..... Yet it is impossible....amazing. DD
Concerning fuel delivery, we've gone from carburetors, to throttle body injection, batch port injection, sequential port injection, and direct injection for gasoline engines (throw in some other systems in there too, but these are the most common). Carbs: basically trickled a stream of gasoline down the intake, where it could pool up on the sides of the manifold runners. It would not atomize well, and an optimum air/fuel ratio was hard to achieve. The venturi effect would "draw" the fuel out of the carb, through some metering jets, and into the intake manifold. Throttle body injection (TBI): one or more injectors (actually nozzles) held fuel under pressure, and sprayed an "atomizing" mist (still droplets), into the top of the intake manifold. This better atomized the fuel from what a carb could do, but you still had the fuel pooling up in the runners of the intake manifold, on it's long journey to the combustion chamber. Batch Multi-port injection: utilized an injector for each cylinder, positioned right in front of the intake valves, bypassing the intake manifold completely. This allowed more precise metering, less fuel pooling, more pinpoint timing of fuel delivery. The drawbacks included that several of the injectors would "fire" at the same time. If an intake valve was closed, or partially closed, the fuel would pool and lose it's atomization while waiting for the valve to open and let it into the combustion chamber. Sequential Mult-port injection (MPI): Same setup as the batch MPI, but each injector was timed to inject the fuel when the intake valve was opening, so fuel obstruction was reduced, and metering was more precise. Direct Injection: uses an injector that sprays fuel directly into the combustion chamber, usually under extremely higher fuel pressure than port injection, which increases atomization, and obstructions to the fuel travel, bypassing the valves completely. This had previously been used mainly with diesels, but can be safely done with gasoline (more volatile). Technology progresses........ CaseyH mentioned the optimum air/fuel mixture being 14.7 to 1. That's what auto manufacturers shoot for, but that is an average number for a running engine. The engine computer uses oxygen sensors (which are getting more and more precise and quick responding) to measure the oxygen content in the exhaust, which calculates the air/fuel mixture. The real-time mixture fluctuates up and down, and the computer makes corrections as fast as it can, but it's not a perfect mixture at all times. Even though an air fuel mixture may be good, it doesn't mean that the fuel is burned as efficiently as it could be. If you look at an exhaust gas analyzer, you'll see hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), in every engine out there to some extent (moreso if not masked by the catalytic converter). HC are unburned fuel, fuel that didn't get mixed with oxygen and burned. CO is partially burned fuel, usually indicating a lack of oxygen/too much fuel overall. Both are fuel waste, efficiency waste, gas mileage waste. Liquid gasoline doesn't burn, it's the vapors that burn. Fuel injectors don't vaporize the fuel, it disperses it into fine particles. Those particles are entered into the very turbulent (and specifically designed) intake air stream to atomize and combine with the oxygen. There is very little time for this to happen. I'd have to lean towards the Ogle fuel delivery system as being advantageous from that perspective, but my feeling is that it would be too dangerous to mix gasoline vapors outside of the engine.
No they arent. Some are centuries old actually. We get better at 'squeezing' out more performance, but there are hard physical limits yo everything. Sure you build an engine that is 99.9 % efficient. Who's going to pay $x,000000000 for it though?
Doing it is not so much the issue. Is it economically feasible? I bet I can hypermile and get 70mpg. I'm not going to do it though... too risky
Maybe, but you would think that someone would be trying it. The fact that Shell oil offered him $25 million for it....speaks volumes. There is no incentive for anyone to get great mileage, it would hurt our economy, our taxes, and auto manufacturers. I believe it is 100% about the money.....period. DD
Safety regulations are much more stringent now, than they were....when I was born...wow. There must be some info somewhere on why it isn't being explored, or why it died, other than speculation on greed.
Thank you for one of the few informative posts in this thread. I too was getting tired of people throwing out "thermodynamics" as an excuse as to why it's not possible...when it clearly is possible since the guy already made the engine and proved it worked.
you have to define "possible" sure he made some random car under some random testing conditions get 100mpg. What does that number mean? Nothing. It was not under the standard EPA testing or any standard. In fact I have not seen any info on the car size, engine size, transmission type, altitude, or engine power. I never mentioned 14.7:1 and actually car makers do not strive for that. They strive for the leanest possible without detonation. Each engine needs a different amount. 14.7 is some idealized ratio in a lab that forgets many real world factors. I could drive my Mustang GT 35 miles per hour on a completely flat road during some 45 degree day, and low humidity and probably get double the MPG i get everyday. Just don;t ever hit the brakes, run the AC, rip off all the extras ont he engine and run skinny tires to get even more. The bottom line is like I said before. Gasoline is best used as a liquid. If we want to use a gas use methane or propane. The burn way cleaner than vaporized gas. To TECH- I never mentioned 14.7:1 and actually car makers do not strive for that. They strive for the leanest possible without detonation. Each engine needs a different amount. 14.7 is some idealized ratio in a lab that forgets many real world factors.
That was the point of my smart retort earlier... The problem really all boils down to GREED. The industry eats and shelves everything that could make them less money... only now they would just raise the prices to adjust for efficiency. They are trying to force anyone with less than 30 mpg to buy a car with at least 30 mpg hwy... And then they will raise the prices anyway. Greed is the problem, not technology.
why are no car companies making this miracle technology for other markets where these patents do not apply, and where gasoline costs three times as much as it does here? China is subsidizing the cost of gasoline to make people want to buy cars. PRC has no respect for any patent. Why are they not making this 30 year old carb?
