Wow...I knew a Army Mechanic...in 1986 do the same thing.....I thought it was a joke.....but he proved it just like you did..... He taught me tricks about power steering, and transmissions as well....he learned it in the Army in The 70's..... Thanks again it brought back a lot of old memories... God bless you and your family Brother Daymond Chief Jones
Chief, your SCOJ website should allow people to interact with you - there was no way for me to leave a message. You need different software, I could help if you want. You need to use "Forum" software, and it's free - even Wordpress could do the job. Gimme a shout back back if you want to transform your website for the glorification of Yehoshua.
@@legallyinsane7151 ...my email address is on there .. and....a customer contact info is there. I get 1-10 inquiries a week...and as many as 50....and sometimes none.... daymond4040@yahoo.com Contact me here
OK. the bubble type of carburetor works. So three questions. What kind of fuel economy are you getting? Does the engine show signs of overheating because it is now being run leaner? What are your NOX values?
I've driven my truck about a maximum of 5 miles using it like this, you can't drive any further than that because the gas gets really cold. However if you run an engine with no water it only takes about a minute and a half to start overheating and it never heated up anymore than usual. Also I've watched several videos on this and one guy did a dyno test in exhaust test in the exhaust was almost zero but I can't tell you the mileage you have to heat the gas and do a way better job than what I did this was just an experiment
Hi, I did this in high school auto shop in 1984. The whole class built canisters for 2 different vehicles a Ford Ranger and a Datsun B210 that belonged to the school auto shop class. It worked good. We figured at the time the Datsun was getting about 80 miles to the gallon or so and the truck eas getting about 50 or 60. The class was pretty excited along with our teachers, we were going to enter both vehicles in our local Science fair at the Ventura country fair. But the powers that be desided against it?? We we never told a reason? But now knowing what I know, it does not surprise me that the powers that be didnt want this information out? We should be getting 200 miles per gallon or more on our vehicles now for sure. Its all about the money and how much it cost to get oil out of the ground. Take care. Hawk out!!
This neither black arts or suppressed knowledge. The reason you saved fuel is 1: The smallest molecules in your gas evaporates first and takes less heat to break down so higher thermal efficiency. 2: if your doubled mileage you used half the amount of fuel per combustion which is the same as running lean. It is no secret that you can roughly double your mileage by running lean and it can be done safely with an easy foot on the throttle, but you can also do that by reprogramming your ECU. However in both cases your NOx emissions often go up, so this is a no no for car manufacturers. Remember WV did exactly that with their cheating software and where did that land them? Did you notice that the engine stalled after a while on fumes. That is because when only long molecules are left in the can, they wont evaporate as easily and what is left is more like Kerosene, so unless you intent to throw the Kerosene away the fuel is not more energetic on average by being evaporated, you are just eating your cookie first.
Tore Lund Hi. Well said. I wish that manufacturers would install a fuel air mixture control in Pick-ups? Like in lite genral aviation aircraft. I think I could save about 1/8th to 1/4th gallon depending on the octane. It would be fun to see how much you would really save. But cooling the engine and the flux of the temp may be a problem? But it would be fun. I haven't even tried looking on TH-cam for such a thing? Take care and Thanks for the reply. Hawk out!!
Cheers, If you are going to wing it it would maybe be sensible to install a temperature sensor the cylinder head, they come as a washer with a temp sensor welded to it to put under your spark plug, , but it is usually not a problem when driving with 1/3 throttle or less as you do the most of the time when cruising with the occasional 1/2 throttle for accelerating. I had a failing fuel pump some time back and I only noticed it when putting my foot down it, kind of lacked top end power and the exhaust smelled more obnoxious it stinged slightly in my nose, and my temperature shot up 10 degrees after accelerating hard. After I'd changed the pump, I checked my plugs and they were not burnt but white with ash. No damage to the engine.
The reason it runs a little rough is because it is a fuel injected truck. ECM is looking for fuel pressure to make adjustments in timing etc but doesn't see the fuel. It's basically driving the ECM crazy lol. But yes, this works 100% positive. Just would work better without an ECU driven engine.
I believe it. Will the pistons run hot. The fuel vapor in the injection coats the inside of the cylinder to help with cooling. I'm concerned that running on the fumes might cause the engine to run lean. (Hot)
I watched another vid along this lines. A guy did this on a lawn mower, blocked the fuel line, and yes, the mower ran for like 27 minutes on a jar of Gas fumes, vented of course. He turned around and RE-tested what the performance would have been running the original carburetor, and there was only about a 3% difference. Keep in mind, your engine isn't going to care where it gets the fuel / air mixture from, if it's burnable, it's burnable.
Mac Guy this is very interesting needless to say. Question, do you drive the truck with this setup daily? If so what kinda milage you getting? If no then why not if it works so good and is running on such minimums of fuel? Very intrigued by this but there's gotta be down sides somewhere if you know down sides to this please list thanks love content you should make other videos with similar content.
Have a v6 magnum in my Dakota. Greatest little truck I've ever owned. 275 K on it now and still running smoothly. Got the same speedometer thingy going on and they say it is the sensor that is located on top of the rear differential. Did clean it but still doing the same. Don't register until about 20 miles an hour then it is fine. Very interesting video. Thank you for sharing.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +3
It makes total sense. Here in Argentina we use compressed methane gas to run our liquid fuel engines ( injection and carburator) with a very similar system you have there except it comes from a sealed container that obviously has to be regulated government approved etc. Guess who is the only authorized seller? Righ on , the oil companies.
how fast can the truck go?...have you figured that out yet?....how many miles did you get out of that little bit of gas you put in there?...just wondering & curious! ty for the video
I don't understand why anyone would not believe it gasoline is raw fuel but if you set it on fire you will notice that the flame is separate from the wrong gasoline it is the fumes that burns. That is the science between combustion you need raw fuel are to turn it into gas which will ignite and create combustion. To the person that did not believe this go back to school or use your computer to do the research no more than downloading music and movies and texting your friend you might learn something.
The liquid (gasoline) is flammable, the gas (gas fumes) are explosive. Combustion engines use fuel, air, and spark. Inside a chamber called a cylinder, air and fuel are put in. In a fuel injected car, the fuel is sprayed in a mist like a can of air freshener. Air is also put into the cylinder to make the gas more explosive than with just nothing but fumes. The air is compressed by the piston inside the cylinder to get it ready to explode (combust) to push the piston back down. A spark like a lighter when you flick it, makes the air and fuel ignite and explode (combust) making a force that causes the piston to move back down. The piston is attached to a crankshaft which rotates when the piston moves. This motion and chemical reaction is used to deliver power to your wheels in order to move and drive the car.
It's basic chemistry, you need the proper air to fuel ratio for fuel to burn. You can have as much fuel as you want but if there is not sufficient oxygen, it won't burn. Excess air is fine but too much fuel and you will waste fuel as it won't burn. So while your statement that the fumes burn is somewhat accurate the truer statement would be to say once there is sufficient oxygen present along with the fuel it can be burned.
I've been using the same thing, getting 138 mpg in my car for the past 9 years. 8 years ago we started setting this up in friends cars and we now have 86% of the cars in our county using this. The local fuel distributors sent an investigation team to see why the area saw a 72% reduction in fuel purchases. They tried filing injunction after injunction. But since it was not a business, they couldn't confiscate the devices. It was so successful, the oil companies were afraid we would share the plans, so they killed all 21,683 of us.
Are you checking comments? Have you done anything else with this type of setup? And have you done any mileage testing of your own? With gas going up to insane levels, I'm strongly considering doing one of these vapor setups. I'm an automotive technician. Surprisingly I have not tried this yet. But I definitely will be trying it on my generator for the test model and go from there. If I have success, I'll work on building an entire fuel/vapor system for our daily car.
Wow! This is great stuff! You should bring a line from the fuel pump to feed the vaporizer so it self-refills from the fuel tank. A guy did that on a Corolla and it worked great. Congrats man!
This may seem off topic but hear me out this idea could be used to power your vehicle. I have an idea for a lifting force machine. Step 1: Get hollowed out cube. Step 2: Securely attach magnet to inner bottom of hollowed out cube. Step 3: Place a lever on inside bottom of cube behind the magnet thats securely attached to inside bottom of cube so that one side of the lever is pointing towards you and hanging over the magnet. Step 4: Attach a vertical bar to the top side of the part of the lever that is not hanging over magnet witch is securely attached to inner bottom of cube. Make sure the bar goes all the way up to the inner top of the cube barley touching it. Step 5: Securely attach a magnet to the side of the lever that is hanging over the magnet that is attached to the inner botttom of cube. Note: Magnets need to be facing each other with attracting poles N,S or S,N Note: The lever is going to have to be realy close to the magnet on inner bottom of cube because of how close those magnetic fields need to be to interact. But not so close that magnets can touch. The magnet on top connected to lever is pulling the magnet on inner bottom of cube towards it and since the magnet on inner bottom of cube is connected to cube, this pulling force acts as a lifting force. Now at the same time the magnet on inner bottom of cube is pulling the magnet on top downwards BUT the magnet on top is connected to the lever so any downwards pulling force is being converted mechanicaly by the lever into upwards lifting force. Now if you know anything about magnets you now that there are magnets powerfull enough to lift far more weight then just there own. So essentialy this divice is exploiting the powerfull pulling force of magnets by mechanicaly transforming its magnetic pulling force into mechanical lifting force through the clever utilization of a lever, and walla stuff can be made to fly. Imagine if the magnets in this experiment where electro magnets so the ammount of electrical current going into them determined the ammount of lifting force that it would have. Now imagine this system being used as an attachment that could be placed under or ontop of vehicles to counter the weight of the vehicle and any cargo its carying. Now imagine if this was done with powerfull permanent magnets and turned sideways and placed in an electric generator and had enough strength to pass through the magnetic fields as it propelled itself forwards with its own magnetic pulling force. -Signed AMA-
I've done this myself. It does work. Although it does increase efficiency it remains illegal, at least in Virginia. I've even done it to my lawnmower. Have you ever looked at the gas in the can after running it for a while? The gas becomes cloudy and stays that way. I guess that has to do with the aeration. I wonder if putting small air filters on the intake hoses would help? It's like the air emulsifies the gas after awhile.
So you made a BONG-ORATOR, the intake air is bubbling through the gas and atomizing it similar to a float tank on a B&S. May not improve efficiency but could be useful to get home in a post SHTF world.
i was messing around making gasoline vapor but instead of engine having to draw air through the fuel(gasoline) to produce vapors i went another way and used a 12 volt compressor with a bubbling stone for aquariums in the bottom of my tank submerged in gasoline. it makes thousands of bubbles going through the gas coming out as vapors and all the engine has to do is use the vapors not make them. i need to add my second device which is a vibration to the tank to create more vapor. when i get done i will disappear without a trace or so i have been told.
The patents are there to make our vehicles do wonders but it's all about the oil. It's cool when I pull to a red light and the car in front of me is frying chicken. I believe this is a great educational video that allows us non engineering gear heads to get a CLEAR Idea about what is possible and possibly spawn a great idea that could benefit lots of ppl today and in the future. Tango Tango out
There's always someone who dowsn't want this information out there. It does'nt matter what those idiots say. You know you have something. Thanks for getting this out there.
thank you !! that was super helpful !! got to modify my honda. Thinking of replacing my fuel tank cap with a butterfly valve and the cover with thick steel mesh. so air can be pulled inside the gas tank which is enough to fill it half way. Still I don't know if my honda pgm-fi accord ECU will accept to turn on the car with the fuel pump and injector disconnected. This is the only way to make it discreet
In the early 70s a man in south Texas did the same thing and got almost 60MPG. He made a professional rig and he was silenced. Never heard from again. If you look in either Popular Mechanics or Mechanics Illustrated from 1971 to 1974 has his designs .
he actually got to sell some from what i've heard from the guy that works with me. he said back then his buddy bought one for a mercedes and said he got 70 mpg.
"He was silenced"? So why didn't"t "the man" silence the magazine then? Maybe it just wasn't a good enough invention, because if it was, it would definitely be standard by now..
Well, at least someone is trying to make life better, rather than trolling someone that does. The past inventions we all love come from people trying the things some want. We find new ideas by accident, that cant happen if someone isnt using their time to do it. I have no problem with someone trying, I do hate to see someone blast them for doing so. Its a great thing the previous inventors didnt stop. Hell, we may not be here posting...
This is what I would call 'Thinking outside of the box', a perfect example! This could/would save a LOT of fuel if industrialized! Good job Sir! I applaud You! \m/ While the oil companies suck up all that money and car makers practically build the very same formula of an engine for 100+ years!! This is science, there is no "If it ain't broke don't fix it' in science! And this video is proves it!
you need to get an aftermarket ignition system made for a carburetor and this will work even better . Your computer will not detect fuel pressure and will constantly vary the spark timing to compensate for no or lean fuel detected very cool
Many vehicles don't detect fuel pressure. The engine clearly ran well. The injectors rely on a regulated voltage and rail pressure relative to intake vacuum, so the computer can accurately guess how much fuel is used. Most vehicles don't have a fuel pressure transducer.
I have no idea why someone would think an age old idea would not work. Great job on the back flash arrestors. It could be noted also that you do not need a fuel filter or an air filter anymore and other nice little bonus I found the longer I run mine the colder than fuel gets so a regulated fuel heater might be a really good idea for keeping the fuel at a constant temperature, but yours is under the hood so you probably don’t have much of a problem on my lawn mowers, the fuel will eventually get too cold to vaporize well and being cold it will absorb humidity from the ambient air and making it cloudy looking.
We use glass 1 gallon jugs with 3/4 hose and quarter cok valves to vaper gas to run are generater. It is better than the carb.the carb is still use for the butterfly valve for rooms. Great video!
Mark, could you explain that a little better? I live on a 2 acre place in the country and have an extra car or truck to try it on. In a power outage I use a 2000 watt power converter on an idling car.
I Believe you have proven this. I have pored gas into a carb many times to start a gas starved engine. The question everyone is asking. Will it get better gas mileage?
I met an old gentleman back in the 80's when I was in the military and he told me about a cadillac that he bought direct from the factory. He was from Texas and drove the car back home. He said he couldn't believe it but he was getting 100 mpg on that drive. The factory engineers found out that their test car had been sold to this guy. Within days they confiscated the car. He didn't say if they gave him another or a refund but he sure was pissed.
I believed it the first video, There will always be naysayers. I'm more curious about A/F ratio and egt, and how many miles will that give you in that v8 truck (318 I believe).
@@Taco_Syndicate right cuz this TH-camr is Bare Bones testing a theory as though a naturally aspirated internal combustion engine only needs a supply of fuel vapor at the same time as not being able to display proof that the fuel ratio is not too lean that would overheat or torch the inside of the combustion chamber components. So instead of rabble-rouse the guy, I thought it was obvious that he could have offered at least the consolation that with that simple rigged up gas can under the hood could limp a vehicle home or to a shop if the fuel pump goes out instead of suffering a tow. NMH
I knew a guy that did something similar to this in a early 2000’s Ford Focus. He plumbed the factory tank with a 3” vacuum hose. It was routed thru the cab and firewall to a electronic speed control blower. It’s a total Frankenstein build but it runs! He claims he gets 70-75 mpg.
i read through the comment section. In it i find a lot of "engineers". Some say: Too lean mixture, will kill the engine. Overheating etc. Others then say that the oil will prevent that from happening. As it will still be pumped around. Others talk about poor mileage. Yet others try to say that you can do 100 miles per gallon. Then you have the people who explain that carburetors do the same thing, or almost the same thing. And then you have people who say that this is different from carburators. I cant say who is right, because im not an "engineer". But what i dont see anyone mentioning is that he aint using his fuelpump anymore. He aint using his injectors anymore. I thought that it requires energy to have those components work.............So he is saving that bit of energy, i would think. Plus, the components themselves, they wont break down. He doesnt even need em. So, they cant break down. Im just saying. Isnt that worth something? Shouldnt that also be taken into account when trying to establish if this works or not? (works like in: If it is cheaper to run an engine like this or not)
David, sounds nice. Except, doesnt it require a pump? Doesnt it require Injectors or how you call them in a diesel (im dutch, we call em Verstuivers, but i dont know the english word for it at the moment). Seems to also require a fuelmanagement computer and all that sort of shit, right? Yet here in this video we see::::: , sparkplugs, pistons and some valves, alternator or such, and it runs. No pump. No injectors. All of it wouldnt be needed. SURE! It aint as efficient as todays cars with all the technobullshit in them. BUT, all i was saying was that people always talk about fuelefficiency, yet i never ever hear anyone talk about the FACT that this would require less components on an engine, which in the long run saves factories building such components (CO2 and all that kind of bullshit). The components wont wear down, since they aint there. Etc etc etc. They told me an airco requires energy to run. So......... eventhough the engine is running, if i turn on my ac compressor it requires extra fuel in the engine. I would think that all the components which one doesnt need with this system (in the video above) also require the engine to work a bit harder. SURE, just a tiny bit. But think about it................
I already get 100MPG from my Huffy 26" cruiser and Honda 25cc engine, no additional time, effort or money required, just change tires to Kevlar, bolt on the engine kit, fill it up, pull start, pedal a bit then stop pedaling, hit the throttle and go faster for longer. Easy peasy throttle squeezy.
shoomapado 23MPH, pretty fast for a bike, that heavy bike, my overweight self, about 1/3 the speed of cars on highways, 2/3 the speed of cars in town, and overall it's good enough for me. Probably good enough for most people, too, unless you expect to transport more than 2 passengers, dead weight, behind the bike. Then there's sort of a law of diminishing returns. You either burn more fuel or you lose speed and torque. Also, if I wanted to, I could get the 2 stroke version and get it up to about 45MPH without decreasing fuel efficiency. I just don't want to, but I own that. That's on me for not going for something more efficient. I prefer my Honda 4-stroke. Others have similar issues, I guess. The only thing stopping us from being more efficient are our personal preferences. Humans can be so damn particular.
That's pretty KEWL!!! Good to know to get out of a jam and home or auto parts store. I never knew that or heard of that before. That Dodge MAGNUM sounds good even running on "Fumes"👌 Thx👍
It doesn't matter if you physically remove the fuel pump while they watch, there's ALWAYS going to be trolls and closed minds. I know this is real for a fact. The problem is that people expect to double or triple their mileage. It does NOT give much mileage improvement, but it does burn much cleaner and more completely.
+Mark Sullivan with the same horsepower. You don't get horsepower from gasoline. You get horsepower from torque conversion. Any transmission mechanic could tell you that much...
HP is a measure of power using force/torque x distance. HP doesn't happen without torque and torque doesn't happen in an engine without an A/F mixture being ignited.
@@Notyourslave69 Torque is the measurement of rotational resistance, created by the engine producing rotation, which is compounded and increased by a centrifugal clutch and gear tooth ratio, and transfered to the tires via friction clutchpoints. However, horsepower is measured by the overall amount of weight a vehicle can manipulate. A vehicle with 200 horses can do the same work as 198 horses(real). Work defined here as weight manipulated.
The main drawback, as another astute commenter (or perhaps many) noted, the fuel is being evaporated in fractions based on the constituent molecule's volatility. In other words the short-chained carbon molecules (think heptanes) are evaporating first, leaving "heavier" molecules and fractions closer to the non-volatile asphalt. So your engine performance will change dramatically as the fuel changes in its molecular makeup. This is a very simple, high school chemistry fact that can't be overlooked. Yes, this idea works, but since gasoline contains numerous hydrocarbons with different partial pressures and different boiling points, your evaporating gasoline will constantly be forced to become less and less volatile as the tank gets used up. That will mean leaner and leaner air-fuel mixtures, which can lead to overheating, fuel starvation, and stalling. It may require you to dump out the heavy fuel and replenish it with new gasoline frequently. Go on a long trip with a 10 gallon tank of gasoline and I think you will see my point.
Gasoline in this application is dynamic; Rather than simple evaporation at room temperature, a vacuum is present. The pressure difference lowers the temperature required to cause evaporation. And due to the layout of the hoses, air bubbles through the gasoline causing complex circulation of the liquid and gas. Therefore, the heavier molecules get an opportunity to evaporate as the vacuum assists the process. The gasoline is constantly mixed, to permit molecule distribution and facilitate uniform evaporation
@@SuperLeeroy69 lol no fords, i dont like replacing transmissions every 20k miles no american cars for me period, the japanese produce a far superior automobile hands down over any american junk.
Great job making this system work! I have witnessed first hand, a friend running a car off of a gasoline pre-vaporizing system similar to yours so I have no doubts of your accomplishment. I have also seen several vehicles that ran off of "producer gas" by the same type of induction system. So-called producer gas is generated by the incomplete combustion of wood fiber (the Germans ran cars off of producer gas during WWII). Some have made wild claims of doubling, tripling, quadrupling,...efficiency by pre-vaporation of gasoline and I think these claims are bunk.
Colman gasoline camp stove operate on same principle except gas is heated at flame area and converted into vapor and burned. No liquid gasoline is burned.
I have one of those camp stoves and this thing burns on a quarter gallon of gas for a whole day it's crazy. I thought of using 1 as an emergency hot water heater
@@SuperLeeroy69 believe it or not I did this with a Ford Ranger fuel injection. I fake fuel computer to make the computer think oxygen sensor was rich and caused the truck to stall then I put in my vapor device in and vacuum sucked only vapor into intake and it worked fine. Speed odometer did not work so I could not do mpg.
The doubters are Clearly oil company moles hired to search for remedies like this. Pogue built a fuel Vapor unit, Manx (dunebuggies) built one, and several others. The more sophisticated the design, the more $ they were offered by oil companies to shut it down and destroy all documentation. When they refused, they all died. QUESTION: even though the plastic can with tubes is pretty basic, Have you ever been approached and asked or been offered money to Stop showing the public? Take the cash, go wiggle your toes in the sand! You were good enough to show us all, and if people can't remember a plastic can with tubes then they need to ride the bus anyways! Great Job!
carburetors were more efficient than fuel injection , and this is why you hear stories of people who used to get phenomenal fuel mileage, because of experimental carburetors which did what this guy did, used vapor to burn in the engine, todays cars are not efficient, they burn liquid, which cannot be burned completely so you go around dumping perfectly good fuel onto the ground
Engines do not burn liquid. Nothing can burn liquid, the molecules are too close together, each molecule needs to be surrounded by air, so atomisation (in fuel injection and carburation) works, evaporation (this experiment) works. You always need some device to separate the molecules. Whether you use fuel injection, a conventional carburettor, or this makeshift carburettor, it's always gas. The early cars referred-to in other answers used evaporation. Carburettors were more efficient and injection allows more control, especially of exhaust gases.
integr8er66 the principle is the same, mixing ait with fuel in a chamber, but no Carb works mixing fumes with air, unless the fumes don’t have to travel too far and the mixture of air and fuel to engine is v direct with rubber pipes needed instead of Jets and valves etc.
I can see that this would work just fine, as you created created a Vacuum, which would suck any Gas fumes into the engine.. Any gas Engine Runs on fumes, not Liquid Gasoline.. Now what would be interesting, would be How miles to the Gallon, you would get without the Fuel pressure and Injectors involved, eliminating most of the raw gas, oh and Emissions, readings... Also I would improve the Sealing, on the top & Bottom of the Air filter, using High density Foam or Rubber... Good Luck...
The injectors are clean out of the equation. Fuel pressure is null, because the fuel pump, pulling fuel from the tank, has been disconnected. The theory is to pull the fumes straight into the AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM, using the vacuum created by the engine. In this theory and demonstration, emissions are practically eliminated because of how it is atomized and how quickly it burns. A naturally aspirated motor would create enough vacuum on demand, at any given RPM to draw in the mixture. It's almost self regulating at any altitude even, given that all mechanical moving parts are adjusted properly. No response required.
I can only speak on my own personal experience, based on a small engine, of course. I know, there's a big difference between small one cylinder engines and motors that are designed for on road vehicles, but the theory is still the same. My experiments prove a rather large gain in efficiency, but who am I to say that. It's just plain common sense to me to harness and divert fumes which are substantially more explosive. Getting down to the atom level, it's far more efficient. I'm not going to argue, nor do I have to prove it. Some people have it, most people don't.
Seen this before. Too bad the parts mileage is not worth it. This is a viable concept but running an improperly tuned engine for the fuel to air ratio will destroy the engine. This is running the engine "lean". That means the fire is too hot. Good way to melt the piston and scorch the bore. This can be good technology if someone designs an engine with the proper compression and timing for this concept. I could hear the knock through the video while you were driving trying to accelerate. Like I said it's a great concept, just need some properly designed aftermarket components If you hope to achieve long term longevity and proper performance.
But that lean of a mixture, at a compression ratio that won't damage the metal, also won't produce enough horsepower. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the fuel/air mixtures of today's engines aren't as efficient as is currently possible technologically, except that it's wrong.
I see no merit to this comment. The only way we can really know the facts is to see a lengthy road test like Tom Ogle did. What Ever Happened to Tom Ogle in the 70s?
There's only one problem. Gas fumes are like running lean. It's neat that you figured this out, and of course gas fumes are combustible, but you've just reduced the process of mixing gas with air by using evaporation instead of atomization, thereby making it less efficient. The purpose of fuel injection is to get a better ratio of fuel to air under pressure. What you've done is created a really weak combustion. Sure, the combustion is efficient as far as usage, but your truck will have no power, because under load, you need more air, and thus more fuel. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but you've not done anything sensational.
You don't understand that 'atomization' is a misnomer; Fuel injectors don't make vapour. Only droplets of liquid fuel. Vapour has much more surface area and distribution, with the least density for the same or greater energy yield.
+J D (MISTER TEE) Fusebox cover is redundant. with the relay unplugged and the engine running, if you plug the relay back in the electrical influx will burn out the relay instantly. Like I said, redundant and wouldn't make a shred of difference.
Did this to my lawnmower because the carburetor failed. Not a big deal at all... It would run the lawnmower for about 10 minutes before the engine would start overheating. It also leaves fuel in the bubbler tank that won't burn so it wastes the part of the fuel that cools the engine down. Over all not a good idea, had the lawnmower been worth it, I would have gotten a new carb for it. Look up "split the positive" and then build a large HHO cell that can handle many Amps. Then put the battery bank in the back of a pick-up truck with some solar panels to charge up the batteries.
Is it possible to run an engine off things in the air? Could we also take something bad out of the air using an engine and replace it with something clean?
I have read some of the patents of carburators that would get over 100 m.p.g. The common theme between these patents was that the fuel was heated creating a finer fuel mist. We know that fuel injection is more efficient than carburators partially because of the finer mist. So it makes sense that an even finer mist than fuel injection would work even better. Food for thought,, Try ultra sonic of the fuel.
Ive seen some old carb mods that heated the gas right before injection. As did tom ogle carb that got high mileage, that got scrapped on the shelf. So high heat is the key if you ask me. so Farmer what's his head, really didn't do it for me. Just saying. Did a good video though.
SamaritanElad Don't "duh" me lol... You're the 1 comparing apples to oranges there. A torch is not an engine. The differences are significant. Engines put motor oil and metal shavings from the cylinder and piston rings into the water. Torches burn cleaner because you don't need to lube the moving parts, rate of wear isn't so great in the torch that you get material of the torch coming out. Plus, the designs are just different. It's like comparing a valveless pulse-jet that needs no lube or moving parts after starting to a turbofan that needs lube and blades all the time it runs.
Very cool, I'm surprised the air / fuel ratio is (in range) well enough to run that well. I wonder what mileage would be like compared to running the oem fuel injection, or if it would be too rich / lean under different loads. Either way, that's cool!
Lets see you go for a nice long drive , wont happen because your truck will over heat , because you will be running it way to lean, and burn your piston rings up.
@@scottp7587 yes you are right...as long as there is an oil cooler in the line, and maybe a thermostat that allows whatever style motor to run cooler than what's recomended, there still shouldn't be any problems. Problem is, people don't think things all the way through like that.
This reminds me of a friend who came up with what he thought was a great idea, run the alternator off the tires instead of the engine, so his truck would have free electricity. As far as I know basics physics, chemistry and conversion the bonds in molecules to useful power I learned years ago hasn't changed much. There are many fuels and many fuel delivery systems, some are more "efficient" than others but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. What it costs to get a mile down the road for the life of the vehicle is the bottom line. What fuel does the farmer have in his tractor? The one he uses to cultivate all that corn that makes that damn crap ethanol mixture we have to use in our cars? Diesel
You'd be putting more wear and friction on your tires and it'd gain you no additional power. You'd just be slowing the car's roll and replacing tires faster to pull some energy back that you already put in. It's like you gave a friend a dollar and 2 seconds later he gave it back. No gain, just more work for the same or similar end result. It works out okay with gas engines running alternators because those have other things to supply power to, It's better to replace belts and tires at about the same rate with lots of use and less maintenance in the time between than it would be to replace tires about twice as often. Either way, it's not like most people use all the HP from the engines when they drive, so might as well use those over-powered engines for something else, right? Like a high wattage sound system, power seat, AC, heater, higher powered lights, horn or inverter? Either way works, just 1 way works better for the average consumer. Your friend's way would result in no added efficiency unless you coast down hills and push the car up hills with solar power, a sail or something. Cheat the system with technicalities LOL. Momentum takes energy to build up. If you want to lose your momentum and use more power to build it back up to overcome the resistance of the alternator, sure, that'd be fancy, but it wouldn't do you any good. A fly wheel does not turn an engine into a perpetual motion machine or anything similar. It only stabilizes the tires' RPM between engine revolutions, but at further cost of power and efficiency. This is why 2 stroke engines seem smaller but more powerful and efficient than 4 stroke engines. There is less to power, fewer parts (like valves, fly wheels, computers or injectors) to add resistance that'd need to be overcome in 2 stroke engines. This is why 2-cycle engines usually don't have fly-wheels. There's just no need. Fly-wheels are more for comfort than efficiency, much like the "spread spectrum" feature of a computer processor. It robs the top end power to smooth out felt performance. Without a fly-wheel, I'd imagine a 4-stroke engine would feel jerky all the time and shake the frame broken, maybe give a grown driver shaken baby syndrome, too. So they fix flaws in their design by adding more flaws in. In 2 stroke engines, vibration is manageable, because so little time has passed between cycles we can barely perceive it. Riding a 2-stroke engine with no fly-wheel feels like a buzz. Riding a 4 stroke engine with no fly wheel feels like a fast mechanical bull. If anything, I think automotive tech has taken some steps backward, but maybe for different reasons than you believe? I do like 4-stroke engines, though, but only because Honda makes a good, cheap 1 I can put on my bike, plus it's only slightly less efficient than the less reliable Chinese 2 stroke engine I could've put on there for about a hundred dollars less. Everyone has a preference, and I respect that. Let's be honest about this stuff though.
Alt running off tires? Very inefficient as it takes power to turn the tires and now will need more power for alt. You loose power just by going through the transmission and more loss from differential or cv joints. He would be better off putting a fan blade on alt. and place it in front of car as no increase of drag on car.
it would be nice to measure the fuel in a beaker, then pour it into the empty clear container. once you drive on the fumes, come back and remeasure the fuel in the container. this would also prove that you were only running on fumes instead of actually creating a vacuum and ducking fuel in through the hoses. cool video.
You need the raw fuel to cool the cylinders down . How long before you melt the Piston or cylinder? Just like running a leaner jet in a carb. Leaner is meaner but they always blow up if you don't have enough fuel!
Yes it would work on a car with carburetor engine.but u would be running lean and it could cut off when driving up hill.i like to see the effort you put into making this work keep up the good work.
To better the fuel economy the gas needs to be hot. Let the cooling system do the job. Let some of the water pass through the gas in a pipe and you are all set to go. Check the milage before and after the heating of gas.
Careful buddy, I doubt those mesh screens are going to arrest a flash like you think they will. The cover on the air cleaner should be spring - loaded too, or the flash will be forced into the gas can. Good luck man.
Knowing about gasoline and how engines work, i'm not surprised that it runs. I was a little surprised at how well it seemed to drive though. I would be curious to see it under a heavy load though, i suspect thats where you may run into problems.
I did this once in the '60s, back then I only had to go to the gas station once every two years. Then big oil found me out and I had to hide in north korea which is actually the paradise kimmy claims it is. I'm writing this message from north koreas moon vacation base... Praise the great leader and screw big oil!
Liquid gasoline doesn't burn. All spark ignited engines run on vapor only. Running & running with normal air/fuel ratios is another thing. But cool video. Also note if your fuel pump or injectors/curcuit failed. You could drive home or to safety this way. As long as you have spark. Just be cautioned as gasoline vapors are extremely flammable & need to be managed so they do not fill any enclosed spaces.
I saw a guy conduct a gasoline vs gas fumes experiment with a lawn mower. Both worked. Both ran approximately the same amount of time. No significant difference. Certainly not even 5% much less doubling the run time/mileage
I never claimed i was out of gas. That's why i had to unplug the fuel pump relay so the gas would run out of the gas lines . thanks for the response. Any other questions?
AVIATION RUMORS: at first lean is hotter ExhaustGasTemp, but when further leaned the engine actually runs cooler*. That's what they don't want you to know! You are on the right track, just please prove it out at 60-70mph and tell us the increase in fuel economy mpg. Others "appear" have shown that if leaned enough, there is no carbon monoxide anymore, so its actually more healthy and safer. *from pilot experiences when running low on fuel trying to make it back home.
That concept has been around for at least 50 years. And has worked every time.
Wow...I knew a Army Mechanic...in 1986 do the same thing.....I thought it was a joke.....but he proved it just like you did.....
He taught me tricks about power steering, and transmissions as well....he learned it in the Army in The 70's.....
Thanks again it brought back a lot of old memories...
God bless you and your family
Brother Daymond Chief Jones
Thanks. Glad i could help
Chief, your SCOJ website should allow people to interact with you - there was no way for me to leave a message. You need different software, I could help if you want. You need to use "Forum" software, and it's free - even Wordpress could do the job.
Gimme a shout back back if you want to transform your website for the glorification of Yehoshua.
@@legallyinsane7151 ...my email address is on there .. and....a customer contact info is there.
I get 1-10 inquiries a week...and as many as 50....and sometimes none....
daymond4040@yahoo.com
Contact me here
The first thing taught to me about gasoline, liquid gasoline does not burn, only the vapor.
OK. the bubble type of carburetor works. So three questions. What kind of fuel economy are you getting? Does the engine show signs of overheating because it is now being run leaner? What are your NOX values?
I've driven my truck about a maximum of 5 miles using it like this, you can't drive any further than that because the gas gets really cold. However if you run an engine with no water it only takes about a minute and a half to start overheating and it never heated up anymore than usual. Also I've watched several videos on this and one guy did a dyno test in exhaust test in the exhaust was almost zero but I can't tell you the mileage you have to heat the gas and do a way better job than what I did this was just an experiment
Did 2 small yards with my vapor carb on a 4-1/2hp mower with 1.1 cups of gas, first try. I'm just getting started here, so I'm a believer.
I believe it works but enough fuel delivery is what keeps engines running cooler ,how is your engine temps. What do you think your range per tal is.
Hi, I did this in high school auto shop in 1984. The whole class built canisters for 2 different vehicles a Ford Ranger and a Datsun B210 that belonged to the school auto shop class. It worked good. We figured at the time the Datsun was getting about 80 miles to the gallon or so and the truck eas getting about 50 or 60. The class was pretty excited along with our teachers, we were going to enter both vehicles in our local Science fair at the Ventura country fair. But the powers that be desided against it?? We we never told a reason? But now knowing what I know, it does not surprise me that the powers that be didnt want this information out? We should be getting 200 miles per gallon or more on our vehicles now for sure. Its all about the money and how much it cost to get oil out of the ground. Take care. Hawk out!!
I'll be interested in more information on that talk. Tell me what's up with that stuff man
@ Hawktangofive Very interesting! Hey Ventura County? Well hello neighbor! Santa Barbara County here lol.
This neither black arts or suppressed knowledge. The reason you saved fuel is 1: The smallest molecules in your gas evaporates first and takes less heat to break down so higher thermal efficiency. 2: if your doubled mileage you used half the amount of fuel per combustion which is the same as running lean. It is no secret that you can roughly double your mileage by running lean and it can be done safely with an easy foot on the throttle, but you can also do that by reprogramming your ECU. However in both cases your NOx emissions often go up, so this is a no no for car manufacturers. Remember WV did exactly that with their cheating software and where did that land them? Did you notice that the engine stalled after a while on fumes. That is because when only long molecules are left in the can, they wont evaporate as easily and what is left is more like Kerosene, so unless you intent to throw the Kerosene away the fuel is not more energetic on average by being evaporated, you are just eating your cookie first.
Tore Lund Hi. Well said. I wish that manufacturers would install a fuel air mixture control in Pick-ups? Like in lite genral aviation aircraft. I think I could save about 1/8th to 1/4th gallon depending on the octane. It would be fun to see how much you would really save. But cooling the engine and the flux of the temp may be a problem? But it would be fun. I haven't even tried looking on TH-cam for such a thing? Take care and Thanks for the reply. Hawk out!!
Cheers, If you are going to wing it it would maybe be sensible to install a temperature sensor the cylinder head, they come as a washer with a temp sensor welded to it to put under your spark plug, , but it is usually not a problem when driving with 1/3 throttle or less as you do the most of the time when cruising with the occasional 1/2 throttle for accelerating. I had a failing fuel pump some time back and I only noticed it when putting my foot down it, kind of lacked top end power and the exhaust smelled more obnoxious it stinged slightly in my nose, and my temperature shot up 10 degrees after accelerating hard. After I'd changed the pump, I checked my plugs and they were not burnt but white with ash. No damage to the engine.
That is very impressive but do you get better mileage using a vapour than a liquid?. If yes is it worthwhile?
The reason it runs a little rough is because it is a fuel injected truck. ECM is looking for fuel pressure to make adjustments in timing etc but doesn't see the fuel. It's basically driving the ECM crazy lol.
But yes, this works 100% positive. Just would work better without an ECU driven engine.
very good point
The ECU doesn't look at fuel pressure! There isn't even a fuel-pressure input (sensor) to the ECU!
@@mareksumguy1887 The ECU or ECM does however monitor airflow. When the ECM detects more air flow it regulates fuel and timing to compensate.
@@preston121068 This is a speed density setup... it doesn't use a MAF... so it doesn't measure airflow.
Unhook the ecu so it doesn't send the message to the computer.
I believe it. Will the pistons run hot. The fuel vapor in the injection coats the inside of the cylinder to help with cooling. I'm concerned that running on the fumes might cause the engine to run lean. (Hot)
Si podría ser una combustión pobre o caliente
I watched another vid along this lines. A guy did this on a lawn mower, blocked the fuel line, and yes, the mower ran for like 27 minutes on a jar of Gas fumes, vented of course. He turned around and RE-tested what the performance would have been running the original carburetor, and there was only about a 3% difference. Keep in mind, your engine isn't going to care where it gets the fuel / air mixture from, if it's burnable, it's burnable.
Finally, someone with a brain on here.
Welcome, BP, Shell, Caltex, 7-11 and other tycoons!
3% difference my ass!
Mac Guy this is very interesting needless to say. Question, do you drive the truck with this setup daily? If so what kinda milage you getting? If no then why not if it works so good and is running on such minimums of fuel? Very intrigued by this but there's gotta be down sides somewhere if you know down sides to this please list thanks love content you should make other videos with similar content.
the best and most reliable test made showed that there was little or no difference in consumption. that is easy to believe.
Have a v6 magnum in my Dakota. Greatest little truck I've ever owned. 275 K on it now and still running smoothly. Got the same speedometer thingy going on and they say it is the sensor that is located on top of the rear differential. Did clean it but still doing the same. Don't register until about 20 miles an hour then it is fine. Very interesting video. Thank you for sharing.
It makes total sense. Here in Argentina we use compressed methane gas to run our liquid fuel engines ( injection and carburator) with a very similar system you have there except it comes from a sealed container that obviously has to be regulated government approved etc. Guess who is the only authorized seller? Righ on , the oil companies.
how fast can the truck go?...have you figured that out yet?....how many miles did you get out of that little bit of gas you put in there?...just wondering & curious! ty for the video
I don't understand why anyone would not believe it gasoline is raw fuel but if you set it on fire you will notice that the flame is separate from the wrong gasoline it is the fumes that burns. That is the science between combustion you need raw fuel are to turn it into gas which will ignite and create combustion. To the person that did not believe this go back to school or use your computer to do the research no more than downloading music and movies and texting your friend you might learn something.
The liquid (gasoline) is flammable, the gas (gas fumes) are explosive. Combustion engines use fuel, air, and spark. Inside a chamber called a cylinder, air and fuel are put in. In a fuel injected car, the fuel is sprayed in a mist like a can of air freshener. Air is also put into the cylinder to make the gas more explosive than with just nothing but fumes. The air is compressed by the piston inside the cylinder to get it ready to explode (combust) to push the piston back down. A spark like a lighter when you flick it, makes the air and fuel ignite and explode (combust) making a force that causes the piston to move back down. The piston is attached to a crankshaft which rotates when the piston moves. This motion and chemical reaction is used to deliver power to your wheels in order to move and drive the car.
8th
It's basic chemistry, you need the proper air to fuel ratio for fuel to burn. You can have as much fuel as you want but if there is not sufficient oxygen, it won't burn. Excess air is fine but too much fuel and you will waste fuel as it won't burn.
So while your statement that the fumes burn is somewhat accurate the truer statement would be to say once there is sufficient oxygen present along with the fuel it can be burned.
Have you compared miles per gallon running on fumes vs running with fuel injection?
I've been using the same thing, getting 138 mpg in my car for the past 9 years.
8 years ago we started setting this up in friends cars and we now have 86% of the cars in our county using this.
The local fuel distributors sent an investigation team to see why the area saw a 72% reduction in fuel purchases.
They tried filing injunction after injunction. But since it was not a business, they couldn't confiscate the devices.
It was so successful, the oil companies were afraid we would share the plans, so they killed all 21,683 of us.
Messages from the grave! Good story, lol.
th-cam.com/video/IuGWHfWqWtg/w-d-xo.html
A test of fuel consumption, fuel vapors vs standard fuel delivery system
Kick ass!
Made my YEAR lol.
Absaalookemensch People are not as dumb as you think... how did you write this if they killed you ALL?? you LIE
so what happens if you hit a bunch of woops with it? does it bog out?
Excellent! I dont think it will be the fastest Dodge out there,but if you are just getting around to the shops etc,it great.Thanks for sharing!
Are you checking comments? Have you done anything else with this type of setup? And have you done any mileage testing of your own? With gas going up to insane levels, I'm strongly considering doing one of these vapor setups. I'm an automotive technician. Surprisingly I have not tried this yet. But I definitely will be trying it on my generator for the test model and go from there. If I have success, I'll work on building an entire fuel/vapor system for our daily car.
Wow! This is great stuff! You should bring a line from the fuel pump to feed the vaporizer so it self-refills from the fuel tank. A guy did that on a Corolla and it worked great. Congrats man!
What was the fuel economy on the Corolla, with that system? Sounds really interesting!
This may seem off topic but hear me out this idea could be used to power your vehicle. I have an idea for a lifting force machine.
Step 1: Get hollowed out cube.
Step 2: Securely attach magnet to inner bottom of hollowed out cube.
Step 3: Place a lever on inside bottom of cube behind the magnet thats securely attached to inside bottom of cube so that one side of the lever is pointing towards you and hanging over the magnet.
Step 4: Attach a vertical bar to the top side of the part of the lever that is not hanging over magnet witch is securely attached to inner bottom of cube. Make sure the bar goes all the way up to the inner top of the cube barley touching it.
Step 5: Securely attach a magnet to the side of the lever that is hanging over the magnet that is attached to the inner botttom of cube.
Note: Magnets need to be facing each other with attracting poles N,S or S,N
Note: The lever is going to have to be realy close to the magnet on inner bottom of cube because of how close those magnetic fields need to be to interact. But not so close that magnets can touch.
The magnet on top connected to lever is pulling the magnet on inner bottom of cube towards it and since the magnet on inner bottom of cube is connected to cube, this pulling force acts as a lifting force. Now at the same time the magnet on inner bottom of cube is pulling the magnet on top downwards BUT the magnet on top is connected to the lever so any downwards pulling force is being converted mechanicaly by the lever into upwards lifting force. Now if you know anything about magnets you now that there are magnets powerfull enough to lift far more weight then just there own. So essentialy this divice is exploiting the powerfull pulling force of magnets by mechanicaly transforming its magnetic pulling force into mechanical lifting force through the clever utilization of a lever, and walla stuff can be made to fly. Imagine if the magnets in this experiment where electro magnets so the ammount of electrical current going into them determined the ammount of lifting force that it would have. Now imagine this system being used as an attachment that could be placed under or ontop of vehicles to counter the weight of the vehicle and any cargo its carying. Now imagine if this was done with powerfull permanent magnets and turned sideways and placed in an electric generator and had enough strength to pass through the magnetic fields as it propelled itself forwards with its own magnetic pulling force. -Signed AMA-
nice job, about the same as propane. you can put a cigarette out in gas,but wave it around the fumes and watch out.
I've done this myself. It does work. Although it does increase efficiency it remains illegal, at least in Virginia. I've even done it to my lawnmower. Have you ever looked at the gas in the can after running it for a while? The gas becomes cloudy and stays that way. I guess that has to do with the aeration. I wonder if putting small air filters on the intake hoses would help? It's like the air emulsifies the gas after awhile.
It gets water in it plus dirt so filters would help. Thanks
So you made a BONG-ORATOR, the intake air is bubbling through the gas and atomizing it similar to a float tank on a B&S. May not improve efficiency but could be useful to get home in a post SHTF world.
i was messing around making gasoline vapor but instead of engine having to draw air through the fuel(gasoline) to produce vapors i went another way and used a 12 volt compressor with a bubbling stone for aquariums in the bottom of my tank submerged in gasoline. it makes thousands of bubbles going through the gas coming out as vapors and all the engine has to do is use the vapors not make them. i need to add my second device which is a vibration to the tank to create more vapor. when i get done i will disappear without a trace or so i have been told.
J D R.I.P. :-/
The patents are there to make our vehicles do wonders but it's all about the oil.
It's cool when I pull to a red light and the car in front of me is frying chicken.
I believe this is a great educational video that allows us non engineering gear heads to get a CLEAR Idea about what is possible and possibly spawn a great idea that could benefit lots of ppl today and in the future. Tango Tango out
Thanks man. I know there's a better way to do this and actually work.
There's always someone who dowsn't want this information out there. It does'nt matter what those idiots say. You know you have something. Thanks for getting this out there.
thank you !! that was super helpful !! got to modify my honda. Thinking of replacing my fuel tank cap with a butterfly valve and the cover with thick steel mesh. so air can be pulled inside the gas tank which is enough to fill it half way. Still I don't know if my honda pgm-fi accord ECU will accept to turn on the car with the fuel pump and injector disconnected. This is the only way to make it discreet
In the early 70s a man in south Texas did the same thing and got almost 60MPG. He made a professional rig and he was silenced. Never heard from again. If you look in either Popular Mechanics or Mechanics Illustrated from 1971 to 1974 has his designs .
This person probably he was poor and government and rich people they don't like this wonderful ideas
he actually got to sell some from what i've heard from the guy that works with me. he said back then his buddy bought one for a mercedes and said he got 70 mpg.
"He was silenced"? So why didn't"t "the man" silence the magazine then? Maybe it just wasn't a good enough invention, because if it was, it would definitely be standard by now..
That man from texas was me,I am still locked in the bathroom since,71
I built one a long time ago and since then I have several modifications for it. I wanted to get the size down and the power up.
I have not had much time to go any further than this but am constantly thinking about it. But adding heat to something like this is the key. I think.
Well, at least someone is trying to make life better, rather than trolling someone that does. The past inventions we all love come from people trying the things some want. We find new ideas by accident, that cant happen if someone isnt using their time to do it. I have no problem with someone trying, I do hate to see someone blast them for doing so. Its a great thing the previous inventors didnt stop. Hell, we may not be here posting...
This is what I would call 'Thinking outside of the box', a perfect example! This could/would save a LOT of fuel if industrialized! Good job Sir! I applaud You! \m/
While the oil companies suck up all that money and car makers practically build the very same formula of an engine for 100+ years!! This is science, there is no "If it ain't broke don't fix it' in science! And this video is proves it!
Thanks for that man. Spread the word!
you need to get an aftermarket ignition system made for a carburetor and this will work even better . Your computer will not detect fuel pressure and will constantly vary the spark timing to compensate for no or lean fuel detected very cool
I am
Many vehicles don't detect fuel pressure. The engine clearly ran well. The injectors rely on a regulated voltage and rail pressure relative to intake vacuum, so the computer can accurately guess how much fuel is used. Most vehicles don't have a fuel pressure transducer.
I have no idea why someone would think an age old idea would not work. Great job on the back flash arrestors. It could be noted also that you do not need a fuel filter or an air filter anymore and other nice little bonus I found the longer I run mine the colder than fuel gets so a regulated fuel heater might be a really good idea for keeping the fuel at a constant temperature, but yours is under the hood so you probably don’t have much of a problem on my lawn mowers, the fuel will eventually get too cold to vaporize well and being cold it will absorb humidity from the ambient air and making it cloudy looking.
We use glass 1 gallon jugs with 3/4 hose and quarter cok valves to vaper gas to run are generater. It is better than the carb.the carb is still use for the butterfly valve for rooms. Great video!
Mark, could you explain that a little better? I live on a 2 acre place in the country and have an extra car or truck to try it on. In a power outage I use a 2000 watt power converter on an idling car.
I Believe you have proven this. I have pored gas into a carb many times to start a gas starved engine. The question everyone is asking. Will it get better gas mileage?
I met an old gentleman back in the 80's when I was in the military and he told me about a cadillac that he bought direct from the factory. He was from Texas and drove the car back home. He said he couldn't believe it but he was getting 100 mpg on that drive. The factory engineers found out that their test car had been sold to this guy. Within days they confiscated the car. He didn't say if they gave him another or a refund but he sure was pissed.
They sold him one with a faulty fuel gauge...
I believed it the first video, There will always be naysayers. I'm more curious about A/F ratio and egt, and how many miles will that give you in that v8 truck (318 I believe).
This is a great hack to get a car home with a bad fuel pump!
GREAT point !!!
Finally, something that reads like it came from a sane person LOL
@@kennynoble1223 well thank you very much ,you seem quite sane yourself!
This should've been obvious, and yet it was not. Thank you for that! Highly underrated comment... smh
@@Taco_Syndicate right cuz this TH-camr is Bare Bones testing a theory as though a naturally aspirated internal combustion engine only needs a supply of fuel vapor at the same time as not being able to display proof that the fuel ratio is not too lean that would overheat or torch the inside of the combustion chamber components.
So instead of rabble-rouse the guy, I thought it was obvious that he could have offered at least the consolation that with that simple rigged up gas can under the hood could limp a vehicle home or to a shop if the fuel pump goes out instead of suffering a tow. NMH
I knew a guy that did something similar to this in a early 2000’s Ford Focus. He plumbed the factory tank with a 3” vacuum hose. It was routed thru the cab and firewall to a electronic speed control blower. It’s a total Frankenstein build but it runs! He claims he gets 70-75 mpg.
Sounds similar to Tom Ogle's design. His car ran very well.
i read through the comment section.
In it i find a lot of "engineers".
Some say: Too lean mixture, will kill the engine. Overheating etc.
Others then say that the oil will prevent that from happening. As it will still be pumped around.
Others talk about poor mileage.
Yet others try to say that you can do 100 miles per gallon.
Then you have the people who explain that carburetors do the same thing, or almost the same thing.
And then you have people who say that this is different from carburators.
I cant say who is right, because im not an "engineer".
But what i dont see anyone mentioning is that he aint using his fuelpump anymore.
He aint using his injectors anymore.
I thought that it requires energy to have those components work.............So he is saving that bit of energy, i would think.
Plus, the components themselves, they wont break down. He doesnt even need em.
So, they cant break down.
Im just saying. Isnt that worth something?
Shouldnt that also be taken into account when trying to establish if this works or not? (works like in: If it is cheaper to run an engine like this or not)
Liz
@ lol I just watched that video. It's old technology too.
David, sounds nice.
Except, doesnt it require a pump?
Doesnt it require Injectors or how you call them in a diesel (im dutch, we call em Verstuivers, but i dont know the english word for it at the moment).
Seems to also require a fuelmanagement computer and all that sort of shit, right?
Yet here in this video we see::::: , sparkplugs, pistons and some valves, alternator or such, and it runs.
No pump.
No injectors.
All of it wouldnt be needed.
SURE!
It aint as efficient as todays cars with all the technobullshit in them.
BUT, all i was saying was that people always talk about fuelefficiency, yet i never ever hear anyone talk about the FACT that this would require less components on an engine, which in the long run saves factories building such components (CO2 and all that kind of bullshit). The components wont wear down, since they aint there.
Etc etc etc.
They told me an airco requires energy to run.
So......... eventhough the engine is running, if i turn on my ac compressor it requires extra fuel in the engine.
I would think that all the components which one doesnt need with this system (in the video above) also require the engine to work a bit harder.
SURE, just a tiny bit.
But think about it................
I already get 100MPG from my Huffy 26" cruiser and Honda 25cc engine, no additional time, effort or money required, just change tires to Kevlar, bolt on the engine kit, fill it up, pull start, pedal a bit then stop pedaling, hit the throttle and go faster for longer. Easy peasy throttle squeezy.
shoomapado 23MPH, pretty fast for a bike, that heavy bike, my overweight self, about 1/3 the speed of cars on highways, 2/3 the speed of cars in town, and overall it's good enough for me. Probably good enough for most people, too, unless you expect to transport more than 2 passengers, dead weight, behind the bike. Then there's sort of a law of diminishing returns. You either burn more fuel or you lose speed and torque. Also, if I wanted to, I could get the 2 stroke version and get it up to about 45MPH without decreasing fuel efficiency. I just don't want to, but I own that. That's on me for not going for something more efficient. I prefer my Honda 4-stroke. Others have similar issues, I guess. The only thing stopping us from being more efficient are our personal preferences. Humans can be so damn particular.
That's pretty KEWL!!! Good to know to get out of a jam and home or auto parts store. I never knew that or heard of that before. That Dodge MAGNUM sounds good even running on "Fumes"👌 Thx👍
You are going to cause a great deal of sht with this video. I take my hat off to you and stick my tongue out to those petrol-heads.
Thanks Mac guy. Heading to the garage to do some updates on my truck.
Exactly right atomization is still a form of liquid gas. An engine will run on gas fumes as you just indicated. Again great video bro.
Very impressive! How many minutes can you drive on that system?
It doesn't matter if you physically remove the fuel pump while they watch, there's ALWAYS going to be trolls and closed minds.
I know this is real for a fact. The problem is that people expect to double or triple their mileage. It does NOT give much mileage improvement, but it does burn much cleaner and more completely.
With much less horsepower.
+Mark Sullivan with the same horsepower. You don't get horsepower from gasoline. You get horsepower from torque conversion. Any transmission mechanic could tell you that much...
HP is a measure of power using force/torque x distance. HP doesn't happen without torque and torque doesn't happen in an engine without an A/F mixture being ignited.
@@Notyourslave69 Torque is the measurement of rotational resistance, created by the engine producing rotation, which is compounded and increased by a centrifugal clutch and gear tooth ratio, and transfered to the tires via friction clutchpoints. However, horsepower is measured by the overall amount of weight a vehicle can manipulate. A vehicle with 200 horses can do the same work as 198 horses(real). Work defined here as weight manipulated.
@@Notyourslave69 It is not force divided by torque. I don't know where you got that...
The main drawback, as another astute commenter (or perhaps many) noted, the fuel is being evaporated in fractions based on the constituent molecule's volatility. In other words the short-chained carbon molecules (think heptanes) are evaporating first, leaving "heavier" molecules and fractions closer to the non-volatile asphalt. So your engine performance will change dramatically as the fuel changes in its molecular makeup. This is a very simple, high school chemistry fact that can't be overlooked. Yes, this idea works, but since gasoline contains numerous hydrocarbons with different partial pressures and different boiling points, your evaporating gasoline will constantly be forced to become less and less volatile as the tank gets used up. That will mean leaner and leaner air-fuel mixtures, which can lead to overheating, fuel starvation, and stalling. It may require you to dump out the heavy fuel and replenish it with new gasoline frequently.
Go on a long trip with a 10 gallon tank of gasoline and I think you will see my point.
Gasoline in this application is dynamic; Rather than simple evaporation at room temperature, a vacuum is present. The pressure difference lowers the temperature required to cause evaporation. And due to the layout of the hoses, air bubbles through the gasoline causing complex circulation of the liquid and gas. Therefore, the heavier molecules get an opportunity to evaporate as the vacuum assists the process. The gasoline is constantly mixed, to permit molecule distribution and facilitate uniform evaporation
What surprises me is not that that truck runs on gas fumes, its that the truck is a dodge and it runs at all.
Let me guess, you drive a ford? Lol
No he didn't... Classic. My dodge burned to the ground due to faulty fuel sending relay... POS
A ford is a Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge..
@@SuperLeeroy69 lol no fords, i dont like replacing transmissions every 20k miles no american cars for me period, the japanese produce a far superior automobile hands down over any american junk.
@Armando Silvier better than any damn ford i know that.
Great job making this system work! I have witnessed first hand, a friend running a car off of a gasoline pre-vaporizing system similar to yours so I have no doubts of your accomplishment. I have also seen several vehicles that ran off of "producer gas" by the same type of induction system. So-called producer gas is generated by the incomplete combustion of wood fiber (the Germans ran cars off of producer gas during WWII). Some have made wild claims of doubling, tripling, quadrupling,...efficiency by pre-vaporation of gasoline and I think these claims are bunk.
bad ass brother. im gonna need a junker to play with asap.
Does it run lean/hot. Fuel lubricates the valves & top end. Would you overheat the engine on long runs.
Colman gasoline camp stove operate on same principle except gas is heated at flame area and converted into vapor and burned. No liquid gasoline is burned.
I have one of those camp stoves and this thing burns on a quarter gallon of gas for a whole day it's crazy. I thought of using 1 as an emergency hot water heater
@@SuperLeeroy69 believe it or not I did this with a Ford Ranger fuel injection. I fake fuel computer to make the computer think oxygen sensor was rich and caused the truck to stall then I put in my vapor device in and vacuum sucked only vapor into intake and it worked fine. Speed odometer did not work so I could not do mpg.
The doubters are Clearly oil company moles hired to search for remedies like this. Pogue built a fuel Vapor unit, Manx (dunebuggies) built one, and several others. The more sophisticated the design, the more $ they were offered by oil companies to shut it down and destroy all documentation. When they refused, they all died.
QUESTION: even though the plastic can with tubes is pretty basic, Have you ever been approached and asked or been offered money to Stop showing the public? Take the cash, go wiggle your toes in the sand! You were good enough to show us all, and if people can't remember a plastic can with tubes then they need to ride the bus anyways!
Great Job!
I had to read the comments to understand what the video was about. I was impressed in the end
Feel better if storeage can was metal ?,
Won't start in cold weather. Reduced uphill power. Power susceptible to ambient temperature. Only applicable on cars with surplus engine power, right?
You do know that what you made was a very crude carburetor right?
carburetors were more efficient than fuel injection , and this is why you hear stories of people who used to get phenomenal fuel mileage, because of experimental carburetors which did what this guy did, used vapor to burn in the engine, todays cars are not efficient, they burn liquid, which cannot be burned completely so you go around dumping perfectly good fuel onto the ground
Engines do not burn liquid. Nothing can burn liquid, the molecules are too close together, each molecule needs to be surrounded by air, so atomisation (in fuel injection and carburation) works, evaporation (this experiment) works. You always need some device to separate the molecules. Whether you use fuel injection, a conventional carburettor, or this makeshift carburettor, it's always gas. The early cars referred-to in other answers used evaporation. Carburettors were more efficient and injection allows more control, especially of exhaust gases.
Neil Barnett DILLIGAF
The delivery system was not the point. It's that he is using non liquid gas fumes.
integr8er66 the principle is the same, mixing ait with fuel in a chamber, but no Carb works mixing fumes with air, unless the fumes don’t have to travel too far and the mixture of air and fuel to engine is v direct with rubber pipes needed instead of Jets and valves etc.
I am old and confused! How does the throttle work? When you push the gas pedal how does it work?
I can see that this would work just fine, as you created created a Vacuum, which would suck any Gas fumes into the engine.. Any gas Engine Runs on fumes, not Liquid Gasoline.. Now what would be interesting, would be How miles to the Gallon, you would get without the Fuel pressure and Injectors involved, eliminating most of the raw gas, oh and Emissions, readings... Also I would improve the Sealing, on the top & Bottom of the Air filter, using High density Foam or Rubber... Good Luck...
The injectors are clean out of the equation. Fuel pressure is null, because the fuel pump, pulling fuel from the tank, has been disconnected. The theory is to pull the fumes straight into the AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM, using the vacuum created by the engine. In this theory and demonstration, emissions are practically eliminated because of how it is atomized and how quickly it burns. A naturally aspirated motor would create enough vacuum on demand, at any given RPM to draw in the mixture. It's almost self regulating at any altitude even, given that all mechanical moving parts are adjusted properly.
No response required.
Comes to the same efficiency pretty much... nothing substantial is gained
I can only speak on my own personal experience, based on a small engine, of course. I know, there's a big difference between small one cylinder engines and motors that are designed for on road vehicles, but the theory is still the same. My experiments prove a rather large gain in efficiency, but who am I to say that. It's just plain common sense to me to harness and divert fumes which are substantially more explosive. Getting down to the atom level, it's far more efficient. I'm not going to argue, nor do I have to prove it. Some people have it, most people don't.
project farm came to the conclusion that fuel consumption was comparable... this was on a lawnmower
I know. I saw it. Doesn't mean his conclusion is right.
Do you still drive all your cars like this?? And is there anything negative from this??
Seen this before. Too bad the parts mileage is not worth it.
This is a viable concept but running an improperly tuned engine for the fuel to air ratio will destroy the engine.
This is running the engine "lean".
That means the fire is too hot.
Good way to melt the piston and scorch the bore.
This can be good technology if someone designs an engine with the proper compression and timing for this concept.
I could hear the knock through the video while you were driving trying to accelerate.
Like I said it's a great concept, just need some properly designed aftermarket components If you hope to achieve long term longevity and proper performance.
But that lean of a mixture, at a compression ratio that won't damage the metal, also won't produce enough horsepower. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the fuel/air mixtures of today's engines aren't as efficient as is currently possible technologically, except that it's wrong.
Lean engine will burn valves, especially exhaust valves and seats.
That is not true when you vaporize the fuel. Notice this truck did not overheat from running lean.
Rackstar that's true
I see no merit to this comment. The only way we can really know the facts is to see a lengthy road test like Tom Ogle did. What Ever Happened to Tom Ogle in the 70s?
correct me if i am wrong but didn't i see a carburetor, and didn't you say you had fuel injection?
There's only one problem. Gas fumes are like running lean. It's neat that you figured this out, and of course gas fumes are combustible, but you've just reduced the process of mixing gas with air by using evaporation instead of atomization, thereby making it less efficient. The purpose of fuel injection is to get a better ratio of fuel to air under pressure. What you've done is created a really weak combustion. Sure, the combustion is efficient as far as usage, but your truck will have no power, because under load, you need more air, and thus more fuel. Not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but you've not done anything sensational.
BUT! If you want to get to work and back. Who the buck cares.
You don't understand that 'atomization' is a misnomer; Fuel injectors don't make vapour. Only droplets of liquid fuel. Vapour has much more surface area and distribution, with the least density for the same or greater energy yield.
Great demonstration,
Why did he put the fuse box cover back on? Who was out of view plugging the fuel pump relay back in?
why not leave the fuse box cover off.unplug all the injectors and show us it runs.
+J D (MISTER TEE) Because then you won't get the compression necessary for the engine to run. Those spigots are filling holes in the cylinder head.
+J D (MISTER TEE) Fusebox cover is redundant. with the relay unplugged and the engine running, if you plug the relay back in the electrical influx will burn out the relay instantly. Like I said, redundant and wouldn't make a shred of difference.
How do you turn your gas into fumes before you burn it? Heat your fuel line by heating it by engine heat?
Needs more duct tape
How many miles per gallon do you get with this setup?
Did this to my lawnmower because the carburetor failed. Not a big deal at all... It would run the lawnmower for about 10 minutes before the engine would start overheating.
It also leaves fuel in the bubbler tank that won't burn so it wastes the part of the fuel that cools the engine down.
Over all not a good idea, had the lawnmower been worth it, I would have gotten a new carb for it.
Look up "split the positive" and then build a large HHO cell that can handle many Amps. Then put the battery bank in the back of a pick-up truck with some solar panels to charge up the batteries.
Is it possible to run an engine off things in the air? Could we also take something bad out of the air using an engine and replace it with something clean?
Wash your engine
EnteroPollo conLucas yeah, it's very dirty, thanks!
why do it worry u lol its not a show room car so why ?
If you wash your cooley and eat some dragon poop. ENJOY ! ! !
no point, it's gonna go pop! soon...
I have read some of the patents of carburators that would get over 100 m.p.g.
The common theme between these patents was that the fuel was heated creating a finer fuel mist. We know that fuel injection is more efficient than carburators partially because of the finer mist. So it makes sense that an even finer mist than fuel injection would work even better. Food for thought,,
Try ultra sonic of the fuel.
Ive seen some old carb mods that heated the gas right before injection. As did tom ogle carb that got high mileage, that got scrapped on the shelf. So high heat is the key if you ask me. so Farmer what's his head, really didn't do it for me. Just saying. Did a good video though.
add a hydrogen generator (hho) and I think you are on to something.
You love them hhos
I don't love them hhos
So thirsty you can literally dry up the oceans like that.
Kenny Noble Duh, burning hho just turns back into water... See hho torches and you will see water
SamaritanElad Don't "duh" me lol... You're the 1 comparing apples to oranges there. A torch is not an engine. The differences are significant. Engines put motor oil and metal shavings from the cylinder and piston rings into the water. Torches burn cleaner because you don't need to lube the moving parts, rate of wear isn't so great in the torch that you get material of the torch coming out. Plus, the designs are just different. It's like comparing a valveless pulse-jet that needs no lube or moving parts after starting to a turbofan that needs lube and blades all the time it runs.
Very cool, I'm surprised the air / fuel ratio is (in range) well enough to run that well. I wonder what mileage would be like compared to running the oem fuel injection, or if it would be too rich / lean under different loads. Either way, that's cool!
Iv seen more controversial videos regarding who's fart smells worse.
LOL man, farts must be real controversial because you're about to 10 person that's told me that but thank you!
How do you accelerate though? not like your squeezing the gas can to get more fumes,
Lets see you go for a nice long drive , wont happen because your truck will over heat , because you will be running it way to lean, and burn your piston rings up.
scott p Add a bigger radiator!
A bigger radiator will do nothing to prevent detonation caused by a lean mix.
Still gets oil down through the piston rings to cool things down. Rich or lean doesn't matter. Doesn't stop oil pressure.
lean mixture creates heat, end of, try it some time.
@@scottp7587 yes you are right...as long as there is an oil cooler in the line, and maybe a thermostat that allows whatever style motor to run cooler than what's recomended, there still shouldn't be any problems. Problem is, people don't think things all the way through like that.
Gm my friend ur a damn genius thanks for the eye opener the system would hate for us to know about this kudos my man keep it up
This reminds me of a friend who came up with what he thought was a great idea, run the alternator off the tires instead of the engine, so his truck would have free electricity. As far as I know basics physics, chemistry and conversion the bonds in molecules to useful power I learned years ago hasn't changed much. There are many fuels and many fuel delivery systems, some are more "efficient" than others but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. What it costs to get a mile down the road for the life of the vehicle is the bottom line.
What fuel does the farmer have in his tractor? The one he uses to cultivate all that corn that makes that damn crap ethanol mixture we have to use in our cars? Diesel
You'd be putting more wear and friction on your tires and it'd gain you no additional power. You'd just be slowing the car's roll and replacing tires faster to pull some energy back that you already put in. It's like you gave a friend a dollar and 2 seconds later he gave it back. No gain, just more work for the same or similar end result. It works out okay with gas engines running alternators because those have other things to supply power to, It's better to replace belts and tires at about the same rate with lots of use and less maintenance in the time between than it would be to replace tires about twice as often. Either way, it's not like most people use all the HP from the engines when they drive, so might as well use those over-powered engines for something else, right? Like a high wattage sound system, power seat, AC, heater, higher powered lights, horn or inverter? Either way works, just 1 way works better for the average consumer. Your friend's way would result in no added efficiency unless you coast down hills and push the car up hills with solar power, a sail or something. Cheat the system with technicalities LOL. Momentum takes energy to build up. If you want to lose your momentum and use more power to build it back up to overcome the resistance of the alternator, sure, that'd be fancy, but it wouldn't do you any good. A fly wheel does not turn an engine into a perpetual motion machine or anything similar. It only stabilizes the tires' RPM between engine revolutions, but at further cost of power and efficiency. This is why 2 stroke engines seem smaller but more powerful and efficient than 4 stroke engines. There is less to power, fewer parts (like valves, fly wheels, computers or injectors) to add resistance that'd need to be overcome in 2 stroke engines. This is why 2-cycle engines usually don't have fly-wheels. There's just no need. Fly-wheels are more for comfort than efficiency, much like the "spread spectrum" feature of a computer processor. It robs the top end power to smooth out felt performance. Without a fly-wheel, I'd imagine a 4-stroke engine would feel jerky all the time and shake the frame broken, maybe give a grown driver shaken baby syndrome, too. So they fix flaws in their design by adding more flaws in. In 2 stroke engines, vibration is manageable, because so little time has passed between cycles we can barely perceive it. Riding a 2-stroke engine with no fly-wheel feels like a buzz. Riding a 4 stroke engine with no fly wheel feels like a fast mechanical bull. If anything, I think automotive tech has taken some steps backward, but maybe for different reasons than you believe? I do like 4-stroke engines, though, but only because Honda makes a good, cheap 1 I can put on my bike, plus it's only slightly less efficient than the less reliable Chinese 2 stroke engine I could've put on there for about a hundred dollars less. Everyone has a preference, and I respect that. Let's be honest about this stuff though.
Alt running off tires? Very inefficient as it takes power to turn the tires and now will need more power for alt. You loose power just by going through the transmission and more loss from differential or cv joints. He would be better off putting a fan blade on alt. and place it in front of car as no increase of drag on car.
I converted my mower on fumes, but found out i was using more fuel then the carburetor did. But it did run nice and clean exhaust
Great, but how far can one drive on a quater tank of gas using only the fumes as you state. Having to put gas in every 10 miles or so would suck.
it would be nice to measure the fuel in a beaker, then pour it into the empty clear container. once you drive on the fumes, come back and remeasure the fuel in the container. this would also prove that you were only running on fumes instead of actually creating a vacuum and ducking fuel in through the hoses.
cool video.
good for you! How is the mileage?
How the truth has been suppressed and all cars can run on fumes , just think how much money we could all save. Great video.
You need the raw fuel to cool the cylinders down . How long before you melt the Piston or cylinder? Just like running a leaner jet in a carb. Leaner is meaner but they always blow up if you don't have enough fuel!
Yes it would work on a car with carburetor engine.but u would be running lean and it could cut off when driving up hill.i like to see the effort you put into making this work keep up the good work.
To better the fuel economy the gas needs to be hot. Let the cooling system do the job. Let some of the water pass through the gas in a pipe and you are all set to go. Check the milage before and after the heating of gas.
Careful buddy, I doubt those mesh screens are going to arrest a flash like you think they will. The cover on the air cleaner should be spring - loaded too, or the flash will be forced into the gas can. Good luck man.
Knowing about gasoline and how engines work, i'm not surprised that it runs. I was a little surprised at how well it seemed to drive though. I would be curious to see it under a heavy load though, i suspect thats where you may run into problems.
I did this once in the '60s, back then I only had to go to the gas station once every two years. Then big oil found me out and I had to hide in north korea which is actually the paradise kimmy claims it is. I'm writing this message from north koreas moon vacation base...
Praise the great leader and screw big oil!
Combine this tech with a Joe Cell and some magnets and you can drive forever on half a tank of good vibes...
I just wanted to say you are correct. For those who think this is not possible you might want to look up "How does a combustible engine work?"
Liquid gasoline doesn't burn. All spark ignited engines run on vapor only. Running & running with normal air/fuel ratios is another thing. But cool video. Also note if your fuel pump or injectors/curcuit failed. You could drive home or to safety this way. As long as you have spark. Just be cautioned as gasoline vapors are extremely flammable & need to be managed so they do not fill any enclosed spaces.
So a lean engine runs hot. So what temp does the engine run when warmed up?
I saw a guy conduct a gasoline vs gas fumes experiment with a lawn mower. Both worked. Both ran approximately the same amount of time. No significant difference. Certainly not even 5% much less doubling the run time/mileage
Yeah that's cool and all but your your just vaporizing the fuel with vacume I'm sure. What's your gas mileage with this vs a pump and fuel lines?
I know NOTHING about cars so forgive me if this sounds silly, but why does your gas dial still register at half a tank if it’s empty?
I never claimed i was out of gas. That's why i had to unplug the fuel pump relay so the gas would run out of the gas lines . thanks for the response. Any other questions?
AVIATION RUMORS: at first lean is hotter ExhaustGasTemp, but when further leaned the engine actually runs cooler*. That's what they don't want you to know! You are on the right track, just please prove it out at 60-70mph and tell us the increase in fuel economy mpg. Others "appear" have shown that if leaned enough, there is no carbon monoxide anymore, so its actually more healthy and safer. *from pilot experiences when running low on fuel trying to make it back home.