I was wondering what the veteran mechanics thought about combining a fuel heater with a air intake cooler. Cooler air is more o2...Heated fuel better vaporizing? Combining = more HP? Seems fairly doable to devise something......? What are your thoughts?

------------------
84 2.5L Holley TBI Manual Trans White

One issue... As soon as the cool air hits the vapor, it's no longer a vapor. The vapor needs to be kept hot (like around 400^o) or else it will condense back to liquid droplets, because gasoline is a liquid in our "normal" atmosphere.
Do a google search for the alfvaporizer. I'm a member of his Yahoo! group, and it's an amazing little addition to carbbed engines.

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com

Alfvaporizer? I'll check it out, thanks!

Check out Smokey Yunick's Adiabatic Engine. It will clear up a lot of your questions.

Cool fuel is not better? I always thought it was.

this is why SFI shoots the fuel at a closed intake valve. one of the hottest spots in the motor, to evaporate/atomize the fuel spray.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Cool fuel is not better? I always thought it was.

Not when you're attempting to vaporize/completely atomize it.

quote Originally posted by 85duke: Check out Smokey Yunick's Adiabatic Engine. It will clear up a lot of your questions.

I've still yet to find any solid information on this, and I've done quite a bit of research on it... Am I missing something? Everything I read was presented as theoretical/fictional at best. Do you have any hard facts on it, or maybe a website with images, or diagrams or something? You mentioned it in one of my radiator threads, and I've been trying to dig up info on it since then, but still don't have any real data. I know that Henry "Smokey" Yunick was a master mechanic, and he is associated with the adiabatic engine, and had a diagram hanging on his wall, but the actual patent submission was filed in Feb '99 by Tadashi Yoshida.
I'd love to see any info you have on it. Thanks!

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2000014396
http://schou.dk/hvce/

Some race cars use systems that cools the fuel to make it more dense before it gets to the carburetor therefore increasing the amount of fuel in the combustion chamber.

Warming the fuel and air will help it to get a head start on vaporizing getting you better gas mileage. Im not sure about the cars now days but the older carbed cars pulled in air through a heat shield that was covering the exhaust manifold to heat the air.

Alot of people claim crazy high gas mileage with different setups but the only one I had ever been around was a friend of mines and it was a 400 sbc getting 32-35 on the highway. He was heating the gas through 3 heater cores and ran the car on a single motorcycle carburetor.

The only noticeable difference was it sounded completely different, alot smoother , from the fuel being more evenly distributed to the 8 cylinders in more of a gas form than without the heater but it also lost a bit of power in the process.

Ive got a simple copper tubing design for the heater if anyone wants it. You can make the tubing as long as desired.... I could post it.... As for the intake cooler I was thinking something like a radiator based in alcohol/water?

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JumpStart: Some race cars use systems that cools the fuel to make it more dense before it gets to the carburetor therefore increasing the amount of fuel in the combustion chamber. Warming the fuel and air will help it to get a head start on vaporizing getting you better gas mileage. Im not sure about the cars now days but the older carbed cars pulled in air through a heat shield that was covering the exhaust manifold to heat the air. Alot of people claim crazy high gas mileage with different setups but the only one I had ever been around was a friend of mines and it was a 400 sbc getting 32-35 on the highway. He was heating the gas through 3 heater cores and ran the car on a single motorcycle carburetor. The only noticeable difference was it sounded completely different, alot smoother , from the fuel being more evenly distributed to the 8 cylinders in more of a gas form than without the heater but it also lost a bit of power in the process.

AFAIK, (correct me if I'm wrong) the "Cool Can" and other fuel coolers aren't there to keep the fuel cool to produce a bigger bang; they're there to reduce/eliminate vapor lock within the lines. It was designed to maintain the fuel in a liquid state until the point that it's supposed to be vaporized/atomized. Mainly because a race car's engine compartment can get really hot (hotter than the average bear's ), which in turn can heat up the fuel lines, which in turn creates vapor in the lines. Many people think they are supposed to increase hp, because many mfgrs make that a selling point, but if anything, it increases efficiency a little by eliminating vapor lock.
Also, some people cool their return fuel to help eliminate vapor build-up in the tank resulting from warm return fuel and in-tank pumps creating heat. Have you ever gone to get gas, started to unscrew the lid, and gotten a big hissss from your car? Yep, that's highly volatile fuel vapor (well, for the most part, it's not pure vapor...)

The loss of power was most likely due to retarded timing, and the fact that the motorcycle carb was *probably* not large enough for the engine. When the liquid is vaporized, it becomes much more volatile, and is therefore much more prone to predet. A proof of concept would be to take a small bowl of gasoline and toss a lit cigarette in it. It will not ignite the liquid. In fact, if it's cold enough outside, and there is little to no vapor rising from the fuel (from evaporation, not heat), you can toss a lit match into it, and it will extinguish the match.
However, there are countless news stories of gasoline station fires resulting from a static electricity spark between the pumper and their vehicle. This is because when you pump gas, there is a measure of fuel vapor coming back out of the filler tube, and being more volatile, a small spark from static shock can set it off, because it then has properties more akin to propane, methane, etc.
The caveat to using a smaller carb is that you can achieve a higher vacuum against the throttle plane, and even at WOT, pulling in the vapor, but you kinda neuter yourself with lower airflow.
Which brings me to the only improvement (at least that I can tell) that "Smokey" introduced... He used something similar to a turbo (he called it a homogenizer) to compensate for the loss of airflow and maintain a higher level of vacuum.

That's the research I've gathered, anyway. If anyone else has more light to shed, please do.


EDIT: This guy from this thread at eng-tips.com said it very well:
"The gains by cooling the fuel will be more than offset by the weight of the cooler.
If you do a site search with the google feature you will find this has already been covered in detail with all the math done to support the arguments.
Real rough ball park summary from memory.
a:f ratio 15:1 by mass.
Forget about specific heats as I can't remember them.
15 deg drop in fuel temp = 1 deg drop in charge temp, but evaporation rate is also hurt.
Net effect, two tenths of a gnats whisker power increase for a pound or two weight increase
Regards"

[This message has been edited by fieroboom (edited 12-04-2008).]

heated fuel has always been a bad idea for safety reasons.

yes, anyone can choke a V8 by slapping on a teenie weenie carb.

yes - fuel coolers are for vapor lock prevention.

in modern engines - the fuel mix is endlessly adjusted by the O2 sensors, and hot/cold density differences go right out the window.

the only way to get more out is to try and make use of the LARGE amount of energy wasted as heat. perhaps an electric supercharger, powered by a stirling engine making electricity off of exhaust heat.

About two years ago, I stumbled upon an old article. If memory serves, it was about a race car driver who rigged a Fiero go make 80mpg.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: heated fuel has always been a bad idea for safety reasons. yes, anyone can choke a V8 by slapping on a teenie weenie carb. yes - fuel coolers are for vapor lock prevention. in modern engines - the fuel mix is endlessly adjusted by the O2 sensors, and hot/cold density differences go right out the window. the only way to get more out is to try and make use of the LARGE amount of energy wasted as heat. perhaps an electric supercharger, powered by a stirling engine making electricity off of exhaust heat.

Eh, doubt that'll ever happen. The amperage needed to drive a supercharger substantial enough to do anything is way out a Stirling's league, operating alone, that is, simply due to the massive size Stirling that's needed to generate any real horsepower. However, a small supplemental generator to feed the existing electrical system driving an electric supercharger might work, but you're still losing energy to heat with each transfer: Thermal -> Mechanical -> Electrical, when a regular supercharger is directly mechanical, providing much less energy loss (ok, so we don't ever LOSE energy... I should say it's wasted, or 'given up' as heat energy with each transference).

The issue still goes back to physics and the design of the internal combustion engine. We haven't been able to efficiently manufacture any materials with a higher thermal efficiency that can be used in an engine. Steel and aluminum can only get so hot, then the metals break down. Any attempt to regain or reuse the heat energy given off from engines is still slightly wasteful at best, and the reason (IMHO) is because there hasn't been enough R&D done to make anything like a Stirling engine more efficient. The size of a 5hp Stirling is gi-normous!

This is also the same principle and reason we don't have cars running around solely on water via electrolysis into H and O₂, because the power needed to make that electrolysis happen doesn't present a net gain to the power produced. Just like the heat input to the Stirling wouldn't create a net gain to the output at the supercharger. Second law of Thermodynamics, Third Formulation by Lord Kelvin: "It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a ciclic process."

Anyway, please don't view my ramblings as argumentative just to be argumentative; I would love to discuss it more, because I'm dying to know a better way, and it's people like us - the crazy dreamers - that make it happen! Look at how crazy Einstein was considered to be.

...but I think we might be hijacking this thread...

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ergy#Energy_transfer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...aw_of_thermodynamics

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the only way to get more out is to try and make use of the LARGE amount of energy wasted as heat. perhaps an electric supercharger, powered by a stirling engine making electricity off of exhaust heat.

Stirling engine...I will have to check that out. By the way the Fiero has a vapor collector system in case anyone forgot. As a matter of fact there are a few things about the 84 fiero design that suggest uses that were not incorporated in the production models. For instance, there are what looks like plugged coolant lines on both sides of the TBI from the intake manifold.......coolant fuel heater omited maybe?
------------------
84 2.5L Holley TBI Manual Trans White

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: Eh, doubt that'll ever happen. The amperage needed to drive a supercharger substantial enough to do anything is way out a Stirling's league, operating alone, that is, simply due to the massive size Stirling that's needed to generate any real horsepower. However, a small supplemental generator to feed the existing electrical system driving an electric supercharger might work, but you're still losing energy to heat with each transfer: Thermal -> Mechanical -> Electrical, when a regular supercharger is directly mechanical, providing much less energy loss (ok, so we don't ever LOSE energy... I should say it's wasted, or 'given up' as heat energy with each transference). The issue still goes back to physics and the design of the internal combustion engine. We haven't been able to efficiently manufacture any materials with a higher thermal efficiency that can be used in an engine. Steel and aluminum can only get so hot, then the metals break down. Any attempt to regain or reuse the heat energy given off from engines is still slightly wasteful at best, and the reason (IMHO) is because there hasn't been enough R&D done to make anything like a Stirling engine more efficient. The size of a 5hp Stirling is gi-normous! This is also the same principle and reason we don't have cars running around solely on water via electrolysis into H and O2, because the power needed to make that electrolysis happen doesn't present a net gain to the power produced. Just like the heat input to the Stirling wouldn't create a net gain to the output at the supercharger. Second law of Thermodynamics, Third Formulation by Lord Kelvin: "It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a ciclic process." Anyway, please don't view my ramblings as argumentative just to be argumentative; I would love to discuss it more, because I'm dying to know a better way, and it's people like us - the crazy dreamers - that make it happen! Look at how crazy Einstein was considered to be. ...but I think we might be hijacking this thread... References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ergy#Energy_transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...aw_of_thermodynamics

the power of a stirling engine is not so easily fixed. the ratio of the displacement piston to the power piston makes for much adjustablity for making a stirling for different temprature ranges. with such a high temprature difference of exhaust heat vs ambient temp - I think there is much power potential. we are not looking for a closed loop system - just looking to take advantage of otherwise wasted energy. and, I have come up with a fairly slick stirling design of my own.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the power of a stirling engine is not so easily fixed. the ratio of the displacement piston to the power piston makes for much adjustablity for making a stirling for different temprature ranges. with such a high temprature difference of exhaust heat vs ambient temp - I think there is much power potential. we are not looking for a closed loop system - just looking to take advantage of otherwise wasted energy. and, I have come up with a fairly slick stirling design of my own.

Agreed.
I guess what I'm looking at is the ambient temp outside the engine bay vs the temp inside the engine... There a huge potential if you can get a diff between the ambient temp completely outside the vehicle and inside the engine, but I'm just not seeing how you could efficiently do that.
You've mentioned your design before in my radiator thread... are you at liberty to share, or is it something you plan on getting patented? If not, I'd love to see it!

Just a thought though, be sure that whatever your application is, you take the route with least transference. For instance, if you're going to create electrical current, don't do Stirling -> generator, but rather try to implement something more lossless like a thermocoupler. There are thermocouple generators (called thermopiles), and with enough differential, such as inside engine temp vs ambient temp completely outside the vehicle, you can create quite a bit of power, and it seems to me it would be easier to adapt than say a Stirling engine. There was a thermopile created in 1879 that supposedly produced a power output of 192 Watts (in a 12V system, that's 16 Amps!)... That's pretty substantial! One horsepower is approximately equivalent to 745.7 Watts... The only drawback on a thermopile system is again the size, but they can be small individual units connected in series, much like solar cells, and I can imagine lining the engine bay with them, coolant running through them on the 'hot' side, with some sort of heatsinks outside the car for the 'cold' side... You could then easily generate enough power to run a supplemental electric motor if you added a few more batteries for absorption.

Also, check out the Peltier effect, and thermoelectric couplers (TECs).
Here's a table with a nice breakdown of what you can expect from modern TECs: http://www.thermoelectricsupplier.com/single.htm
You can see the TEC1-12708 produces a maximum output of 76 Watts (max voltage of 15.4), and they're only 40mm x 40mm (about 1.5 inches square). So 10 of those in parallel easily gets you close to 1hp (760 Watts max, and at ~15V that's 50.6 Amps) , and in parallel, I don't think the source impedance would be an issue either (but don't quote me on that, haven't done my research on it for the TECs).
Each TEC @ 1.5" x 1.5" has a surface area of 2.25in², which means you can fit 100 of them in just a hair over 1.5 ft²... 100 of them is 7,600 Watts, or about 10hp... Now, if we can just heat the hot side efficiently, and keep the cold side in the air outside the car.... Of course, all the numbers above are maximums, and this is a purely theoretical calculation, but you can see the potential...

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex....c/thermoelectric.htm <<< Early thermopiles

http://www.thermoelectricsu....com/tec-modules.htm
http://www.thermoelectricsupplier.com/single.htm

Ohm's Law:

Awesome stuff, Fieroboom. Winter would provide a much more efficient environment than summer, then.

The power generated from Fierobooms concept could go into an electrolysis system. The system could be heated to reduce activation energy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Earlier someone mentioned the low-temperature tolerence of metal engines. W/ much R/D, what about a ceramic engine? Anyone know of any research involving a ceramic block & head?

-Michael

yes, I am working on a patent on several of the design aspects.
expecting a good 3-4x improvement over traditional stirling designs.
I am about a 1/4 way into building the demo model out of PVC.

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: ... I am asking if I understand this correctly.

Your reasoning is close, but no ... you're not understanding correctly. Yes, there is indeed chemical energy "locked" into water, but the energy required to dissociate water into hydrogen "fuel" and oxygen will always be greater than the energy you can recover by burning the hydrogen and oxygen you just produced. You have to consider the entire cycle (or "system") ... i.e. 2H₂O + (energy input via electrolysis) --> 2H₂ + O₂ --> (energy recovered from combustion) + 2H₂O ... not just at isolated parts of it. When you consider the full cycle there will always be a net energy loss ... usually in the form of waste heat.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-05-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the only way to get more out is to try and make use of the LARGE amount of energy wasted as heat. perhaps an electric supercharger, powered by a stirling engine making electricity off of exhaust heat.

Why not just use a turbo. It uses wasted heat. It may only be about 70% efficiant but much more efficiant than a IC engine. Electric superchargers are a joke, a marketing SCAM. You will get more power using a ram air set up. Think about it It can take up to 15hp or more to run a belt drivin' supercharger Those electric "kits" use a small heater fan motor. They also Don't spin fast enough. A normal ac motor will spin at 1725 rpm and dc motors spin even slower how fast does your starter motor spin and how much power does that take? Try spinning that sucker a 6000 rpm and watch your battery discharge in a few seconds.

------------------
Home of 3 1/2 Fieros, a 900HP AWD S10, a 1967 Pontiac Catalina Convertable, a Chevy Avalanche and lots of misc GM parts.

quote Originally posted by ScottSss: Why not just use a turbo. It uses wasted heat. It may only be about 70% efficiant but much more efficiant than a IC engine. Electric superchargers are a joke, a marketing SCAM. You will get more power using a ram air set up. Think about it It can take up to 15hp or more to run a belt drivin' supercharger Those electric "kits" use a small heater fan motor. They also Don't spin fast enough. A normal ac motor will spin at 1725 rpm and dc motors spin even slower how fast does your starter motor spin and how much power does that take? Try spinning that sucker a 6000 rpm and watch your battery discharge in a few seconds.

yes, of course.
noone here is talking a bilge fan or leave blower.
and, a turbo uses more than just heat. it adds load to the crank. it is parasitic.
we are looking at ways to use ONLY the wasted heat.

quote Originally posted by ScottSss: Why not just use a turbo. It uses wasted heat. It may only be about 70% efficiant but much more efficiant than a IC engine. Electric superchargers are a joke, a marketing SCAM. You will get more power using a ram air set up. Think about it It can take up to 15hp or more to run a belt drivin' supercharger Those electric "kits" use a small heater fan motor. They also Don't spin fast enough. A normal ac motor will spin at 1725 rpm and dc motors spin even slower how fast does your starter motor spin and how much power does that take? Try spinning that sucker a 6000 rpm and watch your battery discharge in a few seconds.

100% on the electric requirements & specs of the electric motors in terms of supercharger; they'll do little to no good. The only reason I didn't mention thatt earlier is because I was concentrating purely on the energy concept.
However, a turbo doesn't really use heat, at least not in the manner we're discussing. It's connected to a highly heated component of the engine (the exhaust), but it uses more exhaust pressure than anything to spin the turbine. Radiant heat, such as what we're tossing around ideas about, will do nothing for a turbo. But a turbo does create more heat...

[This message has been edited by fieroboom (edited 12-05-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ScottSss: A normal ac motor will spin at 1725 rpm and dc motors spin even slower how fast does your starter motor spin and how much power does that take? Try spinning that sucker a 6000 rpm and watch your battery discharge in a few seconds.

In no way will I ever defend those supposed continuously running "electric superchargers." However your argument concerning the battery drain and starter moters is a little ambitious. Starter motors run a a low rpm because they're geared that way. They're geared for low speed high torque so that they can turn the engine. It's easy to have a motor that's really fast or a motor that's really powerful, but the measure is a motor's speed and power. It's just like the relationship between voltage and current in a power source.

-Michael

Many years ago I saw an article where some engineer had built a full size Ford / Pinto motor combination. He used the exhaust heat to power an add on steam engine, claiming Pinto mileage and just over 200 HP. I'm thinking it was either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science. The car worked and drove very impressively for the journalistic staff.

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 12-05-2008).]

Rudolf W. Gunnerman has a tiger by the tail--the Exxon tiger. If the technology that the 66-year-old inventor has spent $6 million and the past seven years developing lives up to his claims, cars and trucks could one day be running on a fraction of the gasoline and diesel fuel they now use. Ditto for buses, planes, trains, and anything else powered by an internal-combustion engine--from lawn mowers to huge electrical generators.


Gunnerman claims to have a technology that enables engines to burn a mixture of half fuel, half water. Yes, water. What's more, he says, the mixture gets 40% better mileage from the gasoline it contains and emits significantly l ess pollution because engines run cooler. In particular, tailpipes emit virtually no nitrogen oxides--the principal source of smog.


Sound crazy? Maybe, but Caterpillar Inc. is so intrigued that in early July it formed a joint venture with A-55 LP, Gunnerman's tiny, nine- person company in Reno, Nev. A-55 is short for aqueous 55%, the amount of water by weight in the patented fuels. But the key ingredient is 0.5% of a secret emulsifier that enables fuel and water to mix--and stay mixed. Gunnerman financed his work with royalties from other patents, especially th ose covering the making of pellets for woodstoves.


NICKEL CATALYST. Caterpillar won't discuss the terms of the deal, except to say it will contribute staff and resources to the new venture, called Advanced Fuels LLC. ``It's certainly very exciting technology, '' says James E. Si bley, Cat's technical manager and acting general manager of the joint venture. ``But a lot of work still needs to be done, and a lot of surprises can always crop up as you go to product development.''


Why does the fuel result in better mileage? Gunnerman believes the water gets broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen contributes energy to the combustion process. That's because there is one additional trick in h is patented process: A small piece of nickel must be attached to the crown of each piston or the top of the cylinder heads. The nickel seems to act as a catalyst in ``dissociating' ' the water, says Gunnerman.


Hogwash, says David B. Kittelson, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. Researchers have been burning 50%- water fuels since the 1940s, and ``there's this myth that you're burning the water.'' Actually, he says, the water j ust allows the engine to run hotter and not melt. World War II bombers wouldn't have been able to get off the runway without their water-injection turbochargers.


Still, Gunnerman's invention has done well in recent tests. Reno used it to power a city bus for five months. The Air Force put six vehicles through a 14-week obstacle course at its Elmendorf base in Alaska. And the Minnesota Tr ansportation Dept. hosted an event last December featuring five vehicles that journeyed 2,000 miles from Reno.


MILES TO GO. In Reno, city bus No.405 began making its daily runs with Gunnerman's blend on Oct. 5, 1993. It racked up 11,292 miles by Feb. 22, when the engine was removed and shipped to Caterpillar for s tudy. Bruce Anderson, maintenance superintendent of Reno's Regional Transportation Commission, kept tabs on performance and found a 29% increase in mileage per gallon of diesel fuel--with no unusual problems.


In Minnesota, Gregory Felt, chief operations engineer for the state' s Transportation Dept., admits he was ``the biggest skeptic around.' ' So he asked Gunnerman's team for a live demo: Mix up a fresh batch with local tap water and diesel fuel. When the blend was used to fire up a model 453 engine from Detroit Diesel Inc., ``it had the cleanest exhaust I've ever seen coming out of a diesel,'' says Felt. ``If it really does what it seems, this is big.''


How big? ``If this proves out, it could reduce the U.S. trade deficit by almost half, by eliminating the need to import oil,'' says John D. Peters, who tracks emerging transportation technology for Minnesota.


Converting an existing gasoline engine to run A-55 fuel would cost less than $500, Gunnerman predicts--including a new fuel-injection control chip that could be programmed to detect the presence or absence of water and adjust op erations accordingly. That way, drivers could fill up with regular gasoline if they couldn't find A-55.


Gunnerman's next project: a fuel that would eliminate gasoline altogether. He calls it ``X fuel.'' It's a mix of naphtha and water. Naphtha comes out of the process of refining oil earlier than gasoline, so it costs 50% less. It 's enough to send the Exxon tiger into a tizzy.

---------------

Just once I'd like to see one of these things end up working out.

intriguing. very intriguing.
If gasoline demand goes down, though, probably naptha price will corrospondingly increase

quote Originally posted by Fierology: a steam power-stroke by injection of atomized water after each combustion power-stroke would also utilize exhaust heat, cooling the block, and using the energy to propel the vehicle. Some (serious) cam and timing engineering would be necessary to switch between a four and six-stroke pattern. -Michael

Perhaps the steam injection can be controlled via pegs on the outside of the crank. Are you suggesting that the steam be used to make greater pressure in the cylinder?

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 12-06-2008).]

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: Perhaps the steam injection can be controlled via pegs on the outside of the crank. Are you suggesting that the steam be used to make greater pressure in the cylinder?

In the concept, which was tested on a small engine and proved effective, turned a 4-stroke engine into a 6-stroke engine. Once the engine warms up, after a power-stroke, the cylinder walls are really hot and the cylinder is filled with scalding class. Usually, after the power-stroke, the exhaust valve(s) open and the spent hot gases are expelled out the exhaust pipes. In this concept, the valve remains closed and the gases are again compressed, which makes them even hotter. Water is then atomized and shot into the cylinder. The pressurized water can be hot w/o vaporizing until it's in the cylinder. The gas quickly expands due to vaporization in the super-hot cylinder and induces a 2nd power-stroke. The exhaust stroke then expels the waste of both power strokes.

The engine does have to do work to compress the hot exhaust gases, but it's made up for as this energy is then spent in the vapor power-stroke. The concept engine had trouble w/ corrosion. I can't remember the name of the designer.

-Michael

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: Rudolf W. Gunnerman has a tiger by the tail--the Exxon tiger. If the technology that the 66-year-old inventor has spent $6 million and the past seven years developing lives up to his claims, cars and trucks could one day be running on a fraction of the gasoline and diesel fuel they now use.

...doesn't the second sentence kinda say it all? I'm sure a lot of that was just trial & error, but day-um. $6M?

I still say that the solution for better mpg/less pollution is right under our noses, but the problem is everyone is seeking 'a' solution... Except I believe the solution is a compilation of several solutions we already have at our disposal. It's kinda like trying to get more hp out of your engine... port & polish won't get you much. Catalytic converter delete won't get you much. Small bore & stroke won't get you a whole lot. But... Add them all up(plus a few other mods), and you get a substantial increase.
IMHO, it's the same with our energy resources. Solar, Thermopiles, Electrolysis, and internal combustion individually don't do what we want them to, but create a system that combines them all, and then you've got something.

quote Originally posted by Fierology: Awesome stuff, Fieroboom. Winter would provide a much more efficient environment than summer, then. The power generated from Fierobooms concept could go into an electrolysis system. The system could be heated to reduce activation energy.

If you guys are interested in hearing/reading, I'd be happy to share my experiment with you I did on this about 1.5 years ago. It was *almost* perfect, but needs more R&D. I lost all the docs & pics on a hard drive that died during shipping. (I shipped all my crap when I moved from Seattle) No offense at all intended towards Pyrthian, but I'm an open source kinda guy, because I know I won't ever have enough to patent anything, so I'm happy to share my design if you want to see it and possibly help me solve some issues on it...

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: If you guys are interested in hearing/reading, I'd be happy to share my experiment with you I did on this about 1.5 years ago. It was *almost* perfect, but needs more R&D so I'm happy to share my design if you want to see it and possibly help me solve some issues on it...

What did you do? Sounds like maybe eliminating a few engine burdens via alternate powering methods?

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 12-06-2008).]

i'm interested

quote Originally posted by Fierology: In no way will I ever defend those supposed continuously running "electric superchargers." However your argument concerning the battery drain and starter moters is a little ambitious. Starter motors run a a low rpm because they're geared that way. They're geared for low speed high torque so that they can turn the engine. It's easy to have a motor that's really fast or a motor that's really powerful, but the measure is a motor's speed and power. It's just like the relationship between voltage and current in a power source. -Michael

Some newer starters do have gears a.k.a. mini starter they use the m with a smaller motor to save space. The typical small block chevy starter runs right off the armature which you would know if you had rebuilt as many as I have. The armature speed of the motor on a DC motor really depends on voltage and the # of motor windings. Another way to increase speed is by reducing the field current in the motor which will make it spin fast but will result in a loss of torque thus this is usually done while the motor is running and gives you a "over drive" on an electric vehical such as the electric forklifts I used to repair. AC motors are frequency driven 60 hz on a typical house hold motor and thus 1725 rpm. AC motors have the advantage of no brushes and thus lower maintenance But require a more complicated motor controller. Sorry to be off subject here Electric motors are much more efficient then an IC motor we just need a light weight electrical storage system to make them portable.

As far as water run engines Electrolis is not the only way to extract hydrogen and oxygen. High heat will do it also but it is too hard to keep it stable as it "burns" back to water.

A diesel motor in a Fiero hmmm " Runs off to steal Brother in laws Bobcat loader"

[This message has been edited by ScottSss (edited 12-07-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ScottSss: As far as water run engines ... High heat will do it also ...

That's not "high heat" as in automobile exhaust temperatures, it's "high heat" on the order of electric arc temperatures (or surface-of-the-sun temperatures, take your pick). And where does this "high heat" come from? It takes lots and lots of energy! There is no free lunch.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-08-2008).]

Yep I agree----"continues building flux capacitor"

quote Originally posted by ScottSss: I'm intrested Too. Hell we all should be

Well, I had a nice long dissertation written, and the power flickered... ARG!

Anyway, I really don't feel like re-writing all of it, so here's the super-simple breakdown. On a quantum level, heat = excited (vibrationally) molecules. Excited molecules = more energy potential (see Rydberg Atom). Electrolysis happens much faster in 200^o water than in 72^o water.
Simple concept outline:
- Fuel tank becomes insulated water tank.
- Cylinders added to store H.
- System is ALWAYS doing electrolysis, so when you park & shut off, you're refilling your cylinders (at a much reduced rate). Pulse Width Modulator controls rate of electrolysis during heat soak/cooldown/unheated stage
- Engine coolant runs through insulated tubes into heat exchanger in the water tank, then out to thermocouplers, then to bypassable radiator.
- Exhaust gases are routed via insulated pipes through the water tank for greater heat transfer & usage.
- Thermocouplers & solar panels provide supplemental electrical power for hybrid electric motor in conjunction with the internal combustion engine.
- System maintained @ 200^oF, and heat is only wasted (run through radiator) if the returning coolant at the engine is too high.

Basically you have to start thinking 180^o backwards, or "outside the box." Since we're using the heat, we trap & channel it, instead of just trying to get it out, and we only waste it when we can't use any more of it (ie, the entire system would have to be @ 200^o)
I chose 200^o because enough below boiling that it leaves room for variation. You don't want your electrolyte (water) to boil, because it creates all the wrong pressures in all the wrong places.
I did a basic proof of concept on a small scale with a 5hp lawnmower engine by coiling small copper tubing in the air cooling fins, and insulated the head to trap the heat in the tubing. Also made custom pipes routing the exhaust through a steel water tank.

Caveats:
- Test was only done at single engine speed. H needs to be metered for throttle control
- H needs to be injected directly into the cylinder to help reduce predet and increase safety (see hindenburg )
- Need a more efficient way to compress H into cylinders.

That's all I can think of right now. I'll try to get some diagrams drawn up this week so it makes more sense. I'm not sure if I already mentioned it, but when I moved from Seattle, I shipped all of my belongings & then flew, so my hard drive with all my research died. But the idea is still in my head, so it shouldn't be much trouble to duplicate & continue. With this design, I noticed that the longer the engine ran & the hotter things got, the more efficient the entire system worked together. With this, I can imagine someone actually anxious to get stuck in traffic!

Initial impression: I like it a lot. Now I want to go and think about it.

Q1: Are there any consequences of a humid system that brings the O₂ and H₂? The hot water will evaporate as well as dissociate.
Q2: What method is used of keeping O₂ and H₂ separate. (Am I right that they form at opposite electrodes and are therefore easy to keep separate?)
Q3: The IC drives the wheels? What does the hybrid electric motor do? ...supplemental?
Q4: Oh yeah, why does it keep electrolyzing when you stop? Is this for a limitied time until the heat in the water tank is expended?

Comment: The more concentrated your electrolyte is, the hotter your system can be w/o over-evaporating/boiling. The hotter it is, the more efficient it is.
Also, I believe even platinum electrodes need to be cleaned every once in a while. If this is correct, the system should be designed such that the electrodes can be cleaned easily.

EDIT: I learned subscripts

Off to home for me, sounds good!
-Michael

[This message has been edited by Fierology (edited 12-13-2008).]