I've been reading up about Smokey Yunick's hot vapor fuel engine, if someone could create something similar to that, but without stepping on the late smokey yunick's patent (whoever owns it now) would be worth millions. Well, as long as you weren't assasinated. But basically smokey, built a system that warmed the fuel, and vaporized it before entering the engine, a long with a special cam, he got 250 hp out of a relaitvely stock duke, without any engine failures and 50+ mpg. The fuel came from a carb, and was warmed up. Then it went to a turbine, that was run from the exhaust (similar to a turbo, but different), the fuel then entered another heater that mixed the fuel with air I believe, and entered the engine. Creating a hell of a lot of hp, and gained mileage 10 fold. This thing could be made to work with any engine, and was rumored that he also had a 350 sbc that got over 50 mpg too. Anyone want to make this thing, into reality, mass produce it, and not sell out to the oil companies?

Hot Vapor Fuel, eh? 50 MPG chevy 350? hmm....I'll do some looking about, and see what I see about this. My first concern is the "Hot Vapor Fuel". A conventional fuel system is dangerous enough. From the name I'd guess instead of misting the fuel for the fuel/air mix, it evaporates the fuel on a hot plate.

I actually have a little book called supressed inventions and how they work with something like this. It talks about the L. Mills Beam Heat exchange carburetor (filed april 6, 1920). There was also a guy named Pogue who was trying out a 200 mpg carbed engine. Plus the book gives some info of people who tried to build their own with some success. For example some guy in kentucky in the 50's built a Mills Beam version of the heat exchange carb and got 115 mpg out of a straight 8 buick roadmaster. If you'd like I can try and find a scanner to scan some of these pages in. It shows diagrams of how the systems would have worked (although they are kind of self explanitory i guess). Of course first i'd need to find a scanner.

Matt

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

[This message has been edited by fiero go fast (edited 04-30-2004).]

did some web searching....
boy there alot of stuff out there about this. it all comes down to a 400 degree fuel/air mix - which is also very lean. and, for some magical reason, doesnt pre-detonate. and its also turbocharged. so, I guess its stupid low compression. the fuel gets heated on the exhaust side of the turbo, and delivered into the intake system before the turbo. the fuel has almost instant evaporation from being so heated, and then swirled even more in the turbo. now, why it makes so much power, I dont get, and why the the motor doesnt melt, I dont get. now, the safety issues - heating the fuel with exhaust - I'm sure can be resolved. and boy-oh-boy, you should see all the consperocy theory's on why the Big Three never made these. I will never believe in the 200 MPG carb.

i wish someone on the forum would experiment with this theory. i dont pretend to understand the "how" and "why" of this technique, but i notice that with the amount of info floating around out there about it, that there is not a large amount of info to debunkt this theory, which would lead me to believe this is possible. given todays higher technology resources, i would think this is quite possible.

the only concern i see would be how to safely contain superheated gas vapors and the preventing premature detonation (a.k.a. "an explosion")

this is pretty cool

------------------
-Monkey

9 Fieros....help

How about building a special fuel cell? A fuel cell that can safely pass superheated gasoline, but in the case of an explosion, won't kill anyone. Remember the liquid part of gasoline isn't combustible, you can even throw a lit match into a gas tank, if no fumes are present. With the heating, all of the fuel is turned into vapor, meaning less is wasted, then the fuel is mixed with the air, and injected into the engine. Basically, couldn't a propane fuel injection system be used to handle the vaporized fuel? The fuel injectors on propane engines don't actually squirt the liquid (I believe), but open up to spray the propane into the engine. Same thing can be applied to the vapors of gas.

what about wraping the fuel line around the exhaust after the cat? i figure about 4 turns should do it, and then on to the TBI or injectors (v6) the only problem i see is maintaining a constant temp. for this i was thinking a tank heater or an in-line hearter would work. SS lines would have to be used throughout of course.

on a side note, there was also an engine that used these principals but routed the gas around the exhaust valve seat to heat it and then i flowed into the chamber through 2 holes under the intake valve. htere was no throtle body or carb, instead it used a variable valve lift drive to regulate air flow. the best part about this system was that it was better than ULEV car for emissions and it used a 4.3L v6, it was also adapted to a sbc. on the down side it only got about 60mpg (for the v6)

------------------
- Why you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy looking, NERF HERDER!!!
- Who's scruffy lookin'?

Arty: a.k.a. FestYboy or Fieroman87
'87 GT 5 spd.
'88 Festiva 5 spd.
Yahoo messanger: AMAbonus
AIM: FestYboy88L

Uhh, wouldn't 60 mpg for a 4.3 v6 be an amazing accomplisment for an engine that usually only gets 15? Its 3 times than what it would get normally. Here's another idea, how about just heating the fuel, no other special crap, we just heat the fuel, with some sort of heater, and push it into the engine like it usually does, would this work?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: did some web searching.... boy there alot of stuff out there about this. it all comes down to a 400 degree fuel/air mix - which is also very lean. and, for some magical reason, doesnt pre-detonate. and its also turbocharged. so, I guess its stupid low compression. the fuel gets heated on the exhaust side of the turbo, and delivered into the intake system before the turbo. the fuel has almost instant evaporation from being so heated, and then swirled even more in the turbo. now, why it makes so much power, I dont get, and why the the motor doesnt melt, I dont get. now, the safety issues - heating the fuel with exhaust - I'm sure can be resolved. and boy-oh-boy, you should see all the consperocy theory's on why the Big Three never made these. I will never believe in the 200 MPG carb.

I remember seeing him on the "Tonight show", I think, and he said that everything you need to know can bee found in a High School science book. The reason for more power is the same reason for higher mpg...EFFICIENCY, you get the most out of the gas and both will go up.

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: Uhh, wouldn't 60 mpg for a 4.3 v6 be an amazing accomplisment for an engine that usually only gets 15? Its 3 times than what it would get normally. Here's another idea, how about just heating the fuel, no other special crap, we just heat the fuel, with some sort of heater, and push it into the engine like it usually does, would this work?

nope, then you would just have hot gas, less power and MPG, reason why racers have fuel coolers (small radiator gas runs through) and fuel cool cans (fuel lines run through can filled with ice)

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

Carbed 2.9 engine build in progress. forged pistons, crane cam, fully balanced, ARP bolts, double roller timing chain and more
--Adam--
IM AOL: FieroGT5speed

I don't have a scanner but someone might be able to post it. Smokey had a big story on this type engine in Hot Rod in the mid 80's and it was installed on a 1984 4 cyl. Fiero. I think the car is still around but unsure who bought it at the big sale.

These are pics of the details included in the patent. There are some interesting facts in this patent. There are also diagrams of the system he used.

quote Originally posted by 1985FieroGT: Uhh, wouldn't 60 mpg for a 4.3 v6 be an amazing accomplisment for an engine that usually only gets 15? Its 3 times than what it would get normally. Here's another idea, how about just heating the fuel, no other special crap, we just heat the fuel, with some sort of heater, and push it into the engine like it usually does, would this work?

looks like someone didn't catch the sarcasm

if i had a scanner i'd find that artical i have and post it, but wait, i have a digi-cam. that'll work, i'll post later tonight
::dashes off to find the artical::

well let's see 'em!!!!!!!!!!

I did a bit of research on this today..

Long story short, it don't work.

According to one MIT professor, Modern engines already burn 97% of their fuel.. the loss in MPG comes from the fact that internal combustion engines are only working at like 30 to 35% effenciency. Most of the power loss goes right out the tail pipe and off the engine block in the form of heat.

But, if you want to do the research yourself..

Start here: http://www.geet.com and do a google search for GEET

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

hokt on foniks werkd fer me!

Smokey's idea is all about capturing and using that heat.

GL

This patent expires in only 2 years ...

I got real interested in this and other forms of raising gas milage back in the late '70's and early 80's with the so-called gas crisis going on. One of the most telling reasons against the idea of the "vapor" carb was explained by an aeronautics engineer (I probably still have the copies up in the attic). The internal piston driven engine simply cannot take the intense temperatures that would be generated by this lean burn technique. If you have any experience with motorcycles or boat outboard engines, you'll know that the fuel is actually used as a cooling agent. Run a 2-cycle engine for very long with a too lean ratio between air and gas and you'll be buying new head and cylinder. A 4-cycle can take a little more due to the extra stroke. Ceramic coatings on pistons, cylinders, and head parts can extend the temperature higher, but you'll still melt parts long before you reach the mile/gal claimed. A modern computer controlled fuel injected engine could be programmed to get about the same air/fuel ratio if you really wanted to try, but do it on an expendable engine. It will take a different engine type to get 100 or more mpg.

------------------
____________________________________________
"Of all the things I have lost during my lifetime, I miss
my mind the most."

ok, now what about alternative fuels? like biofuel (ethelene)?

thanks 87GTBro for the post, some interesting stuff. Although I've gone bug eyed

Matt

quote Originally posted by fieroman87: ok, now what about alternative fuels? like biofuel (ethelene)?

ethenol is an alternative... but it has not been done on fuel injected. Only carb...
It's not hard to make, and pretty easy to convert if you're going carb setup.

If you look it up you'll see people say " I'll never buy gas again "

It can even be mixed with gasoline. It's pretty cool.. I might try it one day.

Smokey was a very inovative guy and came up with a lot of great things. I even had the pleasure of meeting him once. But keep in mind not all of his Ideas worked.

I am not sure the vapor engine worked or not. I feel if it was that good GM or Ford would have not spent Billion's upon Billion's redoing there cars to be small and FWD when they could have bought the rights to this for much less. Just do the math.

There must be something it lacks to make it to where it could be mass produced or maintained after the sale. If he would not have sold the rights you would have expected his family would have after his passing.

Check out the world according to Smokey, It is a great 3 book set and has many details on this engine. He did most of his work on a 2 cyl engine made from a Chrysler 4 cyl. If anything His family made a cheap condensed book for $24 it is a good read.

I, too, kept up with Smokey for many years. The one thing I remember that he said was that, in order to be competitive, an engine had to do everything very well. That was a hint to me that he had some problems that he hadn't quite overcome to satisfy production.
New materials may let these problems be overcome though

He also used a cylinder head/piston design that he called the yin-yang design. It looked like two paislies matched to each other head to tail. He was innovative to say the least. Especially when he noticed that some racing rules didn't specify the size of the fuel line and he "slightly oversized" and lengthened the line in his car. Easily added several gallons of fuel to his capacity!

I've seen fuel injected ethenol first hand.

quote Originally posted by destroy: ethenol is an alternative... but it has not been done on fuel injected. Only carb... It's not hard to make, and pretty easy to convert if you're going carb setup. If you look it up you'll see people say " I'll never buy gas again " It can even be mixed with gasoline. It's pretty cool.. I might try it one day.

Ethanol has been blamed for many engine deaths here as some garages mix it with their fuel. It has been regualted now that garages have to have it publically displayed if they do that. Persoanlly I wont use it. Used to go to this one garage and the car was running like crap. Tried a new garage and the car ran better. Ethanol.

on the topic of alternative fuels...
has anyone seen "The Formula" with George C. Scott?

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: There must be something it lacks to make it to where it could be mass produced or maintained after the sale. If he would not have sold the rights you would have expected his family would have after his passing.

i have been thining about this thread for many hours, and this is the same conclusion i have come to. The fact is, if Smokey HAD successfully made this technology safe and reliable enough for production. he would have sold it or become a multi millionaire reproducing it in mass quantities.

but most important of all. i would bet my life on that had he actually made this safe and reliable he would have undoubtedly gotten nominated and likely won the Nobel Peace Prize for his achievement. The HIGHEST of grand awards on our planet! who would NOT be tempted to recieve this??! . not to mention the cash prize of which has been 1 million tax free american dollars for decades.

in a nut shell., i dont think he got this technology to work any longer than it took to impress a few people at the newspapers and magazines.

in the end, i think he just enjoyed the publicity, notoriety, and myth that he created for himself. ommitting the fact that the genius did not last past a tank of gas or 2-3

[This message has been edited by FieroMonkey (edited 05-01-2004).]

quote Originally posted by datacop: According to one MIT professor, Modern engines already burn 97% of their fuel.. the loss in MPG comes from the fact that internal combustion engines are only working at like 30 to 35% effenciency. Most of the power loss goes right out the tail pipe and off the engine block in the form of heat.

Exactly. Recapturing heat energy is the goal of most vaporization technologies. The problem with heat exchangers is that it takes a long time for the engine to heat-up enough for them to work, which means that you needa regular carburator and you have to switch over to the exchanger system once the engine warms up. All very messy. Electromagnetism and crytal ocillation have also been used with some success in atomizing the fuel.

But the bottom line is that reciprocating internal combustion engines are just plain inefficient designes and always will be. We need new technology.

and the plot thickens,,,,

http://www.schou.dk/hvce/

here you'll find a couple people who claim to have driven the engines, also claiming that the University of Central Florida has one of the engines in the basement

http://www.eng-tips.com/gviewthread.cfm/lev2/6/lev3/35/pid/71/qid/78116