A very good friend of mine was taking his HD mechanics course & decided to try making an evaporative carburetor as a project. He ran hot water from the radiator through his design to vaporize the fuel via a heat exchanger. Amazingly, he did get it to work on his dodge van. He did indeed get better mileage once the engine was up to temperature and the fuel began to be vaporized. I do know from his experiment that the power level was reduced, and during his testing process, he had an explosion and a fire that destroyed much of the wiring in his van. He gave up the project as he then had to buy another vehicle.
There's a fault in the old engines of the 60s here in Australia where many will vapourise the fuel on hot days or when the engine is running hot. I was running seriously late in a 1971 GM and it done it one day. You can feel it kind of surge strange. Of course you CAN run things super lean but you end up burning out the engine in the process. I think these days we should be able to do today better with better alloys and engine designs.
Silly. There is a given amount energy in gas. Better carbs or fuel injection can improve energy extraction somewhat, but most energy loss is in the engine and drive train. You’re not going to turn a 30 mpg vehicle into a 200 mpg vehicle by just replacing the carb.
Yes 200mpg is not happening. Vaporized fuel should be slightly more efficient. My theory is that it just restricted the amount of fuel that could be put into a cylinder. Your just accelerating more slowly everywhere you go, therefore your going to get much improved gas mileage. Similar to just using your foot lightly on the throttle pedal. I can drastically manipulate my cars average mpg by just using a light touch. It's definitely not what it claims to be. That's for sure. They still sell gimmicks like that to this day, that technically can increase your mpg. They just always leave out the part that they have to take something away for that to happen
i think the start is F=MA - you have to convert energy to force - if the mass and the acceleration remain the same the force must be the same - meaning fuel consumption will be the same - the only way to get any improvement would be to improve mechanical efficiency by reducing losses
I sent away to an adfd in the back of Popular Science for the 200 mpg carburetor. I got a booklet describing several systems that would give very good milage. They all did the same thing, thoroughly atomize and mix the air with fully vaporized fuel. They all would do as promised but they all had the same flaw. The air/fuel mix would go into a large plenum. All would go well until you got a backfire or a slight leak through the intake valve which would ignite the large quantity of explosive mix and blow the manifold and the hood sky high. I don’t know what happened to that booklet, I wish I held on to it.
100% correct that you can't get more energy out of a fuel than what it is born with and no fuel can give 200 MPG unless you are powering a piss ant's motorcycle in a vacuum down hill all of the way.
The less you understand about thermodynamics, the better Poque's carburetor sounds. In reality, with the aerodynamics of 60's/70's car,s you'd be lucky to squeeze more than 25 mpg using the latest and most fuel efficient technology we have today.
Something to think about! Propane and Natural Gas are used as a Vapor. When used with a Carburetor they get less mpg because as a vapor it displaces some of the Oxygen and it is the oxygen mixed with the fuel that creates the power. Now when used with direct injection this alleviates the need to mix the fuel with the air in the intake and can be injected without displacing any air (oxygen) and thus more power. When gasoline is used with a carburetor the fuel is mixed with air in the Carburetor and enters the combustion chamber in tiny droplets and creates more power. Direct injection into the cylinder is the answer, that is part of the reason Diesel’s create more power and get better fuel mileage. The only problem with diesel is it is so dirty. the auto manufacturers are doing in today’s cars with gasoline. The advantage of natural gas or propane is they are high octane and cleaner than gasoline and a bonus is they are cheaper. In the US we have an abundance of natural gas, (advantage) ! Oil companies flare off the Natural gas which could be better used and cleaner to use it in a vehicle. Cleaner than an EV. I know I’ll get arguments about that statement.
The main reasons diesels are more efficient is because diesel fuel has more energy per gram than gasoline and the fact that they have less pumping losses due to not having any throttle restrictions. Since in all but 100% full throttle scenarios, the gasoline/propane/natural gas engine is never consuming as much air as it can, the fact that the fuel displaces some of the air flowing into the engine is entirely inconsequential. Natural Gas/Propane do make great fuels though, that's for sure. But Natural Gas will never take off as a vehicle fuel due to it's low density. Propane, which can be easily liquified at room temperature. Natural Gas however requires cryogenic liquifaction.
In my direct experience with LPG I can get more power due to the much better mixture homogenization in spite of the gas displacing some air and therefore oxygen. Some of this power is created by being able to advance the timing considerably, due to the approximate 110 octane rating of LPG. I would point out that gasoline in droplets is always going to burn less efficiently than fully vapourised. Direct injection petrol engines get better economy by injecting richer mixtures near the the spark plug and thus igniting an overall leaner mixture than would be possible to reliably ignite also, running higher compression, because detonation can be reduced by injecting the fuel at the last moment, so it does not have time to heat up and self ignite.
@franksmith6683 carburetor, fuel injection, and direct injection has pros and cons. Carburetors are just simpler and cheaper. Direct injection in my experience honestly isn't worth the trouble in gas engines. But on paper and in theory is superior.
You can convert mist gas ebgines to propane, and they run cleaner and last longer. It's just a PITA to look for a place to fill up. Conversions used to be dual fuel. Gas engines are about horsepower. Diesels are more about torque.
This brings back memories. I did some research on the 200 mpg carburator in the early naughties. One of the old articles about mr Pocue said that he (supposedly) never claimed it to be a 200 mpg carburator. I dont remember the exact number now but it was a bit under 100 mpg but word-of-mouth, headline hysteria and other things inflated his initial claims to 200 mpg. And thus, the myth was born. And Im curious what it means when theres a specified quantity of energy in fuel. Is it the regular stochiometric ratio of air to fuel? The point with vaporized gasoline is that you can run much leaner mixtures because the burn is more efficient. Maybe not producing those 200 mpg numbers but something at least reasonable? And a lot better than other cars of the day.
The calorie (small-c calorie) is the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. If a quantity of fuel contains enough energy to raise the temperature of a liter of water 5 degrees Celsius, it has 5 kilocalories of energy in that quantity of fuel. There is no way, using combustion, to raise the temperature of a liter of water by 6 degrees Celsius using that amount of fuel. One needs a different fuel or more of the same fuel
After reading anything about the “Pogue carburetor” we took an old Moz All rider lawn mower and modified it. To the gas line - We added a section of steel brake line rerouting it’s path around the exhaust pipe before it got to the carburetor. Well..... it ran well. It heated the gasoline up and it ran on the fumes after a bit of time somehow....it would mow all day on a quart of gasoline.....but if you killed the engine off it would refuse to start until it cooled completely!
There is some merit in this idea, because fully turning liquid petrol into vapour and mixing it with the air means it will burn more completely and therefore give better mpg. This effect was evident when i was converting oldrr cars to LPG. where the LPG would be vapourised by hot coolant and mixed with incoming air. Then introduced to the engine as a nicely homogenized gas which would then burn considerably cleaner than the carburated petrol. Combined with some ignition advance, possible due to the higher octane rating of LPG, more power was produced in spite of LPG containing less power per litre. This was most noticable on 1980's engines which were not great in the first place.
what i dont understand is why there aren't more propane vehicles, they are cleaner running, engines last longer , oil changes arent needed as often, many reasons its better than Gasoline. They were fairly common in Alberta when I was a kid lots of people ran propane and sometimes propane or Gasoline.
I got a 2001 dodge ram pickup on propane. One guy I talked to said the new tanks are very expensive now so no one wants to convert anymore. Years ago in Calgary I can remember when propane cost 10 cents/liter. You're correct, the oil never turns black. I reckon there's not as much energy in propane as there is in gasoline so I multiply the price of propane by 1.3 to get a rough equivalent to gasoline. As of July 2024 propane in Victoria B.C. cost $1.29per liter at the Petro Can but I think it's cheaper at the Co-op. Back in 1992 I drove a propane van from Calgary to Minneapolis Minnesota by filling up at the truck stops...got some odd looks from the US folks.
They're REALLY common here in Australia to the point ford had an entire line of PROPANE ONLY vehicles with a redesigned engine with a green valve cover. Ford ecogas. I own one, many were government or company vehicles as mine was. PILES were utes, family car based pick-ups. Mine is a 2008 ford G6 in silver, sedan. Mine is the last of the carburettor style then they went to injected gas (ecoLPI engine) until September 2016 when manufacturing ended here. The New Zealanders use natural gas converted vehicles but here in Australia it's LPG (propane and butane mix). Can't use them in well below freezing like heavy snow areas but with frosts it's fine. Si I'm good bur high altitude areas you either have a dual fuel car or diesel or gasoline. Mine is 4.0 6 cylinder but goes like a V8 because of dual variable cam timing. The UK, Russia, korea and many countries use propane. Hyundai's in korea have injected propane but unfortunately they haven't bought them here. BUT if you get the same size and type of engine, they'll convert fairly well.
Because there is more money is gasoline/oil. Cars that run on hydrogen were invented in the 1980s. There was a solar powered car in the 1990s. There are many more examples of this. Usually oil or car companies purchase the rights to the patent for astronomical amounts of money just to shelve the idea. Other times when the inventor refuses to sell, they end up dead from mysterious circumstances. There is a long long history of these things happening. Change is expensive to begin with and when so many people are making money hand over fist with the current arrangement, most will be resistant to change.
The real number is... Slightly more than a standard carb. Better burn efficiency = more mpg Less power = more mpg Just a guess but i would say probably around a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency but your left with a slower, more expensive, complex car that could explode at any moment.
My dad had a mechanical drawing of the carb. I remember seeing it as a kid, and he explained it to me. Burn the same amount of gas, but being more in a vaporous state it burns better, more completely, thus giving an increase in fuel efficiency without robbing the power of that volume of gasoline. It may not give you 200mpg, but it'll definitely increase your mileage. So, for anyone who is skeptical, build one. Doesn't look hard to do. Then everyone can discuss how good it really is.
What Poque probably invented was a way to reliably atomize fuel at very lean ratios when the engine was operating at near steady-state conditions -kinda like the various "lean burn" technologies that were invented in the 1970s during the oil crisis. That might make it possible to hypermile in "economy race" conditions, with the engine at near-constant RPM, and at optimal load, more reliably than with a regular, general-purpose carburetor, biut likely it wouldn't offer any advantages under varying load or hard acceleration. It would just be better than a "regular" carburetor under very specific conditions.
Yes, I think the concept of 100% fuel efficiency is not in the realm of this subject, as to this day we're still miles away, so far that a solid 10% improvement would be VERY significant. I agree with you that it's highly likely that he found a better delivery system for fuel load in complex engine conditions. Only recently has a better way of atomizing fuel through a ventury system in a low speed air stream been implemented. REF: Smart carbi.
I suspect that it probably did work, but not to anything like the extent of the publicity, and came with negatives (expense, reliability, safety) that meant it ultimately wasn't worth pursuing.
All it did is make the motor run extremely lean...that's fine for very low engine speed....but your not gonna get any real power because you have to add fuel to make more power
An important factor that most miss with the Pogue and other "super Carb's" is the fuel chemistry. Back in the old days before the first energy Crisis in 1973, gasoline had chemistry that made it much easier to vaporise. The refiners changed that in winter of '73-'74 so they could use more of the heavier hydrocarbon chains in gasoline. These bigger molecules require different conditions to evaporate into vapor, compared to the short chain HC's. This change in gasoline chemistry did then and will still defeat Vaporising carburetors like the famous Pogue,. But Ron Hatton created a modern solution to this- the Gadgetman Groove. the Groove is applicable to virtually all gas engines today, and many carburetors too..
one US gallon of gasoline contains 371.5 grams of hydrogen, so 200 MPG of gasoline would be 538.36 miles per kilogram of hydrogen ( 200 ÷ 0.3715 ) or 1.86 grams of hydrogen per mile, that would be impressive. For the EVangelists that would be 16.15 miles per kwh.
A typical ICE operates at 35% efficiency, so theoretically there is the potential to almost triple its efficiency, without getting more energy out, than you put in.
What happened to Volkswagens long run high fuel efficiency diesel engine. It had come out in a few autos in Europe but then was quickly hushed up and all the cars were pulled and replaced with standard diesel engine that got about a half to one third the normal mileage.
Popular Mechanics did an article back in the 1970's during the 73 Arab oil embargo. It was a great article, with the carb mounted to a Ford's front fender. Very little information went into what was required to make it work. Liquid gasoline has a good heat content, although diesel is at the top of the thermal content. The requirement for adequate performance and economy from this carburetor by vaporizing the fuel would require a definite amount of energy to keep the engine running at idle and at 70 MPH it would require a tremendous amount more. So unless this carburetor can store a lot of vapor for full throttle acceleration, it won't work. Add in the weight of the vehicle, rolling resistance, friction and air resistance which all contribute to decreasing MPG while driving. The article in Popular Mechanics mentioned that Polk sold the invention to the oil companies which lead a lot of people to believe it was a conspiracy. Never saw any followup articles in P.M. or Popular Science, or Mechanics Illustrated or any other magazines. Wish I still had that article right now.
Air fuel mixtures can run much leaner in engines with no crankshaft like the Burke engine that actually runs on detonation, not the slow burning in regular combustion engines.
@The0utmode Not to mention the invention of another water piston engine besides the rototary one. Another engine design that is my favorite internal combustion engine spins water tangently inside a cylinder 🌀. The hole in the middle is like the top of the piston , and compression of the air/fuel is forced by the water coming into the cylinder. The high pressure from detonation forces the pressurized water through a hydraulic motor. Cool, huh? 😎
@@jamesbishop9156 All those systems use a central shaft to turn the energy made from the engine into rotational motion aka a crankshaft! An engine without a crankshaft is like a human with no spine. It's not going very far.
@The0utmode do you know what a crank is? It's like a lever on a shaft that causes rotational torque on the shaft. Yes, everything has a shaft for output, but not every shaft has a lever/piston rod that causes side loading on the cylinder walls. Get it? Got it? Good! 🤣🤙👍😎
There is no such thing as a 200 MPG caburetor. You would need to design a 200 MPG engine, none to date as of yet. We don't have a 200 MPG motorcycle, How could we have a 2000- 3000 lb. car get insane mileage?
Exactly correct. And for a clown to claim 200 miles per gallon in the 1930s is absolutely insane. Engines are MUCH more efficient today, and 200 mpg is still impossible for a normal, driveable car.
Internal combustion engines are not efficient, and create waste in the form of heat. A 50cc scooter might get 100-120 mpg on a good day, no way in hell are you getting 200 mpg in an automobile.
To Author, you just run more than one carby or more throats in the carby, it's actually 'more' fuel efficient to spread one carby over multiple cylinders, I have proved this in my rally car 😅😅
Tesla was mostly a fraud. He improved a few things, invented a useful thing, but overall was very mentally unstable and spent more money on nonsense than he ever did on anything else. The modern lore around tesla is mostly nonsense fueled by "i did my own research" idiots on the internet. Tesla failed to finish more projects than anything else.
Cheers Chris, don't think it was possible. Looking at the one off VW doing under one liter per 100 km was a huge feat and 70 years don't think it was possible, not even today it seems. And to top it off, those cars had horrible cw values, boxy and square, so, no way. 👍💪✌
A brother in-law that I personally spoke with told me he invented a solid state relay that would never wear out. He was paid over a million dollars from a railroad company that has kept his invention off the free market. They would rather let people die from a failed relay to keep selling the planned obsolescence relays. This was just a couple of years ago. It's not a conspiracy, it's the truth. 😢
You can run a solid state relay in combination with a mechanical relay. engage the ssr first, then engage the mech relay, then disengage the ssr. this way there's no arcing to destroy the contacts, extending the life of both by an order of magnitude.. then to switch off, you engage the ssr, disengage the mech relay, then disengage the ssr.
Utter bullshit! Solid state relays have been available for AC current since about 6 months after the invention of the silicon controlled rectifier! Don't speak about subjects you have absolutely zero knowledge of.
It is dry fuel..not wet manifold like other cars..wet fuel is changed outside the engine. Then put in the air as dry state… 200 to one air fuel ratio..
He just made a petrol mono injector that was exploding with the back fire from the inlet walves, for sure at the time would have drunk less than any motor in circulation.. just a though.
The great thing about these videos is anyone with basic knowledge on this subject knows from the get go that it's absolutely not possible. So one gets to sit here watching this knowing that Chris is either lying or has been duped into believing something really silly. Either way, grab the popcorn and laugh at this cuz none of this is real world applicable.
@@hondaxl250k0 100mpg+ has definitely been done in purpose built hypermiler situations. That's not the same thing as saying you can bolt on one part and get 200mpg.
@@bradley3549 it was done on a standard production inline 6. That was the rules of the competition.. many other companies competed. With very similar results..
The only way something like this could happen is if his device found a way to do something on the atomic level. If the device sent monatomic hydrogen into the combustion chamber then yes the device would produce more than theoretically possible as diatomic hydrogen has less energy that monatomic hydrogen does. Plus if the device also produced monatomic oxygen from the incoming air supply again it would have a greater energy content than diatomic oxygen does. Did he manage to do something like this? Who knows? But that is the only way I could see his claims being valid as then the science adds up.
There is veracity in his statements of increased mileage. However, he was not in charge of the inflated claims of the reportage by those whose job it is to gild every lily and scream "Murder!" at every papercut in order to sell newspapers. The real differences are attributable to the misunderstanding of the application of the 14.5-1 to 16.1 air to fuel ratio. They were never accurate when applied to a wet fuel delivery system but are truly accurate on a molecular or gaseous delivery. His invention delivered a dry fuel ratio instead of the less refined wet type. Other types of more modern carburation such as the Carter ThermoQuad achieved significant gains by heating the fuel gently with the waste heat in the cooling system. Another was a more finely metered device with 19 different adjustments to the fuel flow , also showing significant gains. I speak of the WCFB Carter. These were phased out after a short while when fuel injection moved out of the cruder, almost reliable, mechanical form to the electrical manipulation sort. Injection point of entry still has adherents in many different places for different reasons. His later in life denials were likely to avoid hearing all the same crap over again and to avoid getting himself killed for admitting the truth.
I saw a local news story many years ago whereby this guy said he had his Cadillac with a huge engine getting crazy good gas milage. He was being interviewed and had the hood open. The engine looked as if it had miles of hoses in it. This story aired once, and he and this story never amounted to anything. I assume he was bought out or threatened. I suspected he was processing the exhaust and re-burning the unburnt fuel and although his calculations may not have been as good as he claimed I still think they were way better than they are now even. Why are we told there is a fuel shortage and we are harming the environment with co2 yet speed limits are increasing. Makes absolutely no sense. Its all about money and nothing else.
While it may be slightly more efficient, in reality, its really just limiting how much gas it allows you to put in the engine. The equivalent of just using a light touch on the throttle. Power decreases MPG. So this carb just decreases power.
Exactly, this is why some people are overly skeptical and others, believe two magnets and a spark plug makes a machine to power a house. All the factor need to be included to determine whether something is what it is implied to be. It's like "I found an invention that genuinely cut 1/4 off my F250's fuel Bill!" A TOYOTA COROLLA! LOL
There is a problem when talking about internal combustion energy today and drawing informed comparison about what was before the introduction of emissions control concepts. Even in an engine with the latest conceptual technology, running hydrogen gas, the combustion temperature has to be regulated to less than the optimal combustion needs. This is because combustion at certain temperature and above cause carbon based combusables to produce nox and various exceedingly harmful gases. While hydrogen is pure clean burning any thing else in the atmosphere is not, such as the traces of lubricants that are unavoidably present in an engine. Catalytic converters are one way of mitigating the worst gases but relative to the life of an engine, the longevity and performance of them is extremely poor. Added to that is the significant high cost of such devices, due to their magic being the result of very precious metals inside. I'm sceptical of those that use only numbers to discredit a claim, I'm also very sceptical of many claims. Early vehicles were comparable with vehicles of the last 20 years in relation to "highway mileage", overall speed and power were arguably lacking, but in the absence of emissions requirements I'm sure there were many concepts developed that were better than what was produced and commonly fitted to engines. The fact that configuration of engines can vary widely, could mean that an extremely good induction system, far better than original fitment, was realized many times, I'm sure this has been an oversight in many a debate as to something being Truth or Tale. We can get 100 mpg, but from uni student projects and not commercially viable products, it's just too hard to harness all the energy released when detonating fossil fuel! Light, heat and sound are good examples of waist, when an engine can run whisper quite without a muffler you will be very close to all that petroleum can deliver. F1 technology is harnessing uncontained expanding pressure and heat with turbo technology and metals that flow electrons when heated, but this is currently expensive tech. The truth is an engines efficiency is reliant on every part and equation relative to each part, from just in front of the intake, to the tip of the exhaust. Manufacturing constraints (physical financial) and industry regulations plus some other factors, mean there is almost always room for improvement!
In a car that weighs 200 pounds, tires at 300 psi, downhill with a tailwind. Maybe. And would have the acceleration of a snail. Whoopie, what fun to drive!
A gallon of gasoline only has so much stored energy. Depending upon how fast that energy is converted to mechanical energy will give you a pretty good idea of how far and how fast you will be able to travel. The quicker the energy is converted, the faster you will accelerate. The slower the energy is converted the further you can travel. There simply is not enough stored energy in a gallon of gasoline, even with a 100% conversion rate, ( Which is impossible ) to move even a very light vehicle 200 miles, as is claimed. Only nuclear energy has that much stored energy, and even then there is considerable loss in it's conversion from heat energy to mechanical energy. Large electric motors will convert electrical energy to mechanical energy at about 97 %, however there is also significant losses in generating electrical energy, and transmitting it to point of use. I know it sucks, but the laws of physics are pretty well established. No matter what the source of energy, it is limited, and reduced in power, every time it is converted from one form to another. Entropy wins every time !!! Tim
IF a car could get 200 mph, i think people would drive more, the economy would improve because shipping would be cheaper. More people would be able to afford to drive and increase oil consumption.
Just a thought what if his device created flammable hydrogen and mixed with the fuel in cylinder and doubled the amount of combustibles ? Just an idea ,not a scientist
I do like these kinds of videos. Good research and a balanced take on this, thanks for going to the effort. . (dumbass kid!) hehe I agree. The stoichiometric mix is optimum, from my limited knowledge of this design, I believe he was pre-heating the air/fuel mix to acheive a true vapour gas, not just fuel droplets in the mix?
First the 396 Opel WAS NOT RUNNING A Poque Carb, it was a running a lawn mower carb and a bunch of other tricks to get that mileage, it was a rigged trial. Second a ELECRONIC CONTEOLLED FUEL INJECTED car can run a very low RPMs like 1000, and at very high air fuel ratios, I have gotten 35MPG at 16.4: 1 at 65MPH at 1700RPMs in a 2000 Mercury Grand Marques any time I wanted to. That car was able to do 27/30MPG stock at 65MPH. First 100% fact, liquid gasoline DOES NOT BURN!!! An old demo is throwing a burning match into a cold bucket of gasoline and the result is a put out match. 100% FACT is only gasoline vapors burn. OK here is the theory/facts behind this claim. ONLY vapor burns, but getting gasoline into a vapor sate is not easy, so cars rely on the fuel droplets vaporizing on their own, in carbs some happened on their way through the carb and though the warm to hot intake manifold there was vaporizing by mixed with air from the carb to the combustion chamber. Some might be also happening with Throttle Body Injection The injectors are on top of a normal carb like intake manifold) but there is some little time for the air and fuel to mix on its way to the combustion chamber. This no longer happens with port injection and direct injection. Port injection happens at the intake valve and modern cars are timing that to happen at the point of the opening valve. But Port injection in the early GM 1985 to 1990 Tuned Port Injection system did do a funny thing, inject fuel onto the hot intake valve which help vaporize the fuel more before the valve opened…. That is no longer done, So now we have to now rely totally on the heat in the combustion chamber to try to convert the fuel to vapor, note there is no real time so only 20 to 30% gets converted. Also gas burning in an ICE (internal Combustion Engine) needs a lot of lead time so we start this burning up to 40+ degrees BEFORE Top Dead Center, and sadly it keeps burning after the power stroke and as it exits the engine and then in the exhaust manifold and so on. The left over still burning fuel is ALL wasted. Even Exhaust Gas Return does only used very little of this. This is what the catalytic convertor burns. Vapor on the other hand burns very fast, and needs no advance start to its burning, so it can be fired AT TDC and then can product full power for the power stroke from TDC (top Dead Center) to BDC (Bottom dead center) And it can be almost all consumed at that point so there is NO burning fuel exiting the engine. How much does 1 gallon of liquid gasoline displace as a vapor? The saturated vapor volume of an average gallon of liquid gasoline when fully evaporated is 160 gallons of vapor at 60° F and sea level. When you convert 1 gallon of gasoline into 160 gallons of highly combustible fuel vapor you increase your nation’s fuel supply by 16,000% (16,000% of 1 is 160). If you paid $5 for just one gallon of liquid gasoline you would actually only be paying $0.03 (3 cents) per gallon of fuel vapor. So this will use a much lesser amount of fuel (perhaps only 30%) to do the same work and none is wasted so the extra 60 to 80% is not needed. It is also written in some tech articles that because of the requirement for a catalytic convertor it MUST be fed some gasoline to operate and to insure this happens 100% of the time our cars are programed to a touch run rich 100% of the time and that 14.7 is only ideal FOR THE catalytic convertor not for the engine nor MPG. The sad thing is today’s fuel injection could give much better MPG if only programed to do so. The only problem with a lean burn of 16/17 to 1 is NOX, and it can be fixed with more EGR or water injection. A car running on pure vapor has a few problems to overcome, 1) using exhaust heat will fail if it does start to run on pure vapor as the exhaust heat drops like rock as there is no burning gasoline in it. So the vapor system shuts down until the heat returns running normally, on and off operation. 2) And independent heat system is needed, electric heating seems to only system. 3) There can be no vapor when the engine is not running, all vapor much be burned before engine is stopped. Escaping vapor is what causes under the hood explosions. So controls to insure this and electronic control of metering and shutting off all fuel in needed. 4) To vaporize current gasoline takes a very high temp and carries a risk of fuel burning at the touch of air, so it has to be make in an air tight system. 5) If as claimed a ICE on Pure Vapor will thus run a lot colder than normal, an extra heating system may be needed for cabin heat in colder areas. This is some of my best understanding on this subject.
This thing looks eerily similar to the jo cell but two jo cells in a single unit. The Jo cell was invented 50 or 60 years later and it worked well. That is until the men in black suits paid a visit and it was silenced????
Let me just stop you right there. There is no such thing. The amount of potential energy contained in gasoline is a well known fact. There is no way to increase that. Every example of these things are complete nonsense. Now get on with your life..
Oh yes it happened. Mister revisionest . ! YOU HAD BETTER BET YOUR ASS IT HAPPENED . 230 MPG TESTED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1935 . IN EVERY NEWSPAPER OF THE TIME .! DON GARTLETS professional drag racer KNOWS ALL from the begining ..! 10:59
Pure unadulterated bull crap. The basic laws of physics apply, even to this guy. I might also note that there is a lot more to engine efficiency than a carburetor. There are simply not enough BTUs in a gallon of gasoline to move a car 200 miles. Pure and simple. This is 100% fantasy. Stories like this have been goping around for decades upon decades. Not a word of truth to them.
The bottom line is this; The higher the compression ratio at the time of ignition, the more power can be extracted from the air/fuel mixture. Detonation is the maximum power output caused by the maximum compression of the particular fuel being compressed to the point of self-detonation. Take this to the bank! 👍🩷😎💚
@@jamesbishop9156 According to David Vizard, Water injection at the right droplet size can take care of this little problem of detonation. I would think it would also be keeping the temperatures below 2500°F, during the combustion process, knocking out oxides of nitrogen formation with the added benefit of steam cleaning the engine from the inside out. Not to mention this steam helping to push the piston down each cycle increasing power and mileage.
@johnwyman6126 Water injection is putting water on a fire. It puts it out. The large amount of energy it takes to change water to a gas/steam is wasted energy. It is not as efficient as the power of detonation alone. It's just a steam-powered hybrid. The small water droplets are used to stop detonation, not enhance the power of detonation.
I've mastered internal combustion engines and rockets. Been there, done that... I'm doing bigger and better things now... I hope my gifts will be accepted by all in the very near future. AWOMAN! 👍🩷😎💚
A very good friend of mine was taking his HD mechanics course & decided to try making an evaporative carburetor as a project. He ran hot water from the radiator through his design to vaporize the fuel via a heat exchanger. Amazingly, he did get it to work on his dodge van. He did indeed get better mileage once the engine was up to temperature and the fuel began to be vaporized. I do know from his experiment that the power level was reduced, and during his testing process, he had an explosion and a fire that destroyed much of the wiring in his van. He gave up the project as he then had to buy another vehicle.
Heated intake manifolds were used for a LONG time to help fuel vaporize.
There's a fault in the old engines of the 60s here in Australia where many will vapourise the fuel on hot days or when the engine is running hot. I was running seriously late in a 1971 GM and it done it one day. You can feel it kind of surge strange. Of course you CAN run things super lean but you end up burning out the engine in the process. I think these days we should be able to do today better with better alloys and engine designs.
A thermostatically controlled preheater would solve the problem of a cold engine. Turns off when the engine is warmed up.
Silly. There is a given amount energy in gas. Better carbs or fuel injection can improve energy extraction somewhat, but most energy loss is in the engine and drive train. You’re not going to turn a 30 mpg vehicle into a 200 mpg vehicle by just replacing the carb.
He points this out at 7:09.
Yes 200mpg is not happening. Vaporized fuel should be slightly more efficient. My theory is that it just restricted the amount of fuel that could be put into a cylinder. Your just accelerating more slowly everywhere you go, therefore your going to get much improved gas mileage. Similar to just using your foot lightly on the throttle pedal. I can drastically manipulate my cars average mpg by just using a light touch.
It's definitely not what it claims to be. That's for sure.
They still sell gimmicks like that to this day, that technically can increase your mpg. They just always leave out the part that they have to take something away for that to happen
“IT WORKS NAPOLEON, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW!!”
- Kip Dynamite
i think the start is F=MA - you have to convert energy to force - if the mass and the acceleration remain the same the force must be the same - meaning fuel consumption will be the same - the only way to get any improvement would be to improve mechanical efficiency by reducing losses
I sent away to an adfd in the back of Popular Science for the 200 mpg carburetor. I got a booklet describing several systems that would give very good milage. They all did the same thing, thoroughly atomize and mix the air with fully vaporized fuel. They all would do as promised but they all had the same flaw. The air/fuel mix would go into a large plenum. All would go well until you got a backfire or a slight leak through the intake valve which would ignite the large quantity of explosive mix and blow the manifold and the hood sky high. I don’t know what happened to that booklet, I wish I held on to it.
100% correct that you can't get more energy out of a fuel than what it is born with and no fuel can give 200 MPG unless you are powering a piss ant's motorcycle in a vacuum down hill all of the way.
😂😂😂👍
The less you understand about thermodynamics, the better Poque's carburetor sounds. In reality, with the aerodynamics of 60's/70's car,s you'd be lucky to squeeze more than 25 mpg using the latest and most fuel efficient technology we have today.
Increased fuel mileage, drastically reduced power
One of the most persistent rumors ever. A little analysis of where the energy goes will reveal this defies the Law of Energy Conservation.
Something to think about! Propane and Natural Gas are used as a Vapor. When used with a Carburetor they get less mpg because as a vapor it displaces some of the Oxygen and it is the oxygen mixed with the fuel that creates the power. Now when used with direct injection this alleviates the need to mix the fuel with the air in the intake and can be injected without displacing any air (oxygen) and thus more power. When gasoline is used with a carburetor the fuel is mixed with air in the Carburetor and enters the combustion chamber in tiny droplets and creates more power. Direct injection into the cylinder is the answer, that is part of the reason Diesel’s create more power and get better fuel mileage. The only problem with diesel is it is so dirty. the auto manufacturers are doing in today’s cars with gasoline. The advantage of natural gas or propane is they are high octane and cleaner than gasoline and a bonus is they are cheaper. In the US we have an abundance of natural gas, (advantage) ! Oil companies flare off the Natural gas which could be better used and cleaner to use it in a vehicle. Cleaner than an EV. I know I’ll get arguments about that statement.
The main reasons diesels are more efficient is because diesel fuel has more energy per gram than gasoline and the fact that they have less pumping losses due to not having any throttle restrictions.
Since in all but 100% full throttle scenarios, the gasoline/propane/natural gas engine is never consuming as much air as it can, the fact that the fuel displaces some of the air flowing into the engine is entirely inconsequential.
Natural Gas/Propane do make great fuels though, that's for sure. But Natural Gas will never take off as a vehicle fuel due to it's low density. Propane, which can be easily liquified at room temperature. Natural Gas however requires cryogenic liquifaction.
In my direct experience with LPG I can get more power due to the much better mixture homogenization in spite of the gas displacing some air and therefore oxygen. Some of this power is created by being able to advance the timing considerably, due to the approximate 110 octane rating of LPG.
I would point out that gasoline in droplets is always going to burn less efficiently than fully vapourised. Direct injection petrol engines get better economy by injecting richer mixtures near the the spark plug and thus igniting an overall leaner mixture than would be possible to reliably ignite also, running higher compression, because detonation can be reduced by injecting the fuel at the last moment, so it does not have time to heat up and self ignite.
@franksmith6683 carburetor, fuel injection, and direct injection has pros and cons.
Carburetors are just simpler and cheaper.
Direct injection in my experience honestly isn't worth the trouble in gas engines. But on paper and in theory is superior.
You can convert mist gas ebgines to propane, and they run cleaner and last longer. It's just a PITA to look for a place to fill up. Conversions used to be dual fuel.
Gas engines are about horsepower. Diesels are more about torque.
@@dwaynestomp5462 you are absolutely correct
This brings back memories. I did some research on the 200 mpg carburator in the early naughties. One of the old articles about mr Pocue said that he (supposedly) never claimed it to be a 200 mpg carburator. I dont remember the exact number now but it was a bit under 100 mpg but word-of-mouth, headline hysteria and other things inflated his initial claims to 200 mpg. And thus, the myth was born.
And Im curious what it means when theres a specified quantity of energy in fuel. Is it the regular stochiometric ratio of air to fuel? The point with vaporized gasoline is that you can run much leaner mixtures because the burn is more efficient. Maybe not producing those 200 mpg numbers but something at least reasonable? And a lot better than other cars of the day.
The calorie (small-c calorie) is the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. If a quantity of fuel contains enough energy to raise the temperature of a liter of water 5 degrees Celsius, it has 5 kilocalories of energy in that quantity of fuel. There is no way, using combustion, to raise the temperature of a liter of water by 6 degrees Celsius using that amount of fuel. One needs a different fuel or more of the same fuel
After reading anything about the “Pogue carburetor” we took an old Moz All rider lawn mower and modified it. To the gas line - We added a section of steel brake line rerouting it’s path around the exhaust pipe before it got to the carburetor.
Well..... it ran well. It heated the gasoline up and it ran on the fumes after a bit of time somehow....it would mow all day on a quart of gasoline.....but if you killed the engine off it would refuse to start until it cooled completely!
There is some merit in this idea, because fully turning liquid petrol into vapour and mixing it with the air means it will burn more completely and therefore give better mpg. This effect was evident when i was converting oldrr cars to LPG. where the LPG would be vapourised by hot coolant and mixed with incoming air. Then introduced to the engine as a nicely homogenized gas which would then burn considerably cleaner than the carburated petrol. Combined with some ignition advance, possible due to the higher octane rating of LPG, more power was produced in spite of LPG containing less power per litre. This was most noticable on 1980's engines which were not great in the first place.
what
i dont understand is why there aren't more propane vehicles, they are cleaner running, engines last longer , oil changes arent needed as often, many reasons its better than Gasoline. They were fairly common in Alberta when I was a kid lots of people ran propane and sometimes propane or Gasoline.
I got a 2001 dodge ram pickup on propane. One guy I talked to said the new tanks are very expensive now so no one wants to convert anymore. Years ago in Calgary I can remember when propane cost 10 cents/liter. You're correct, the oil never turns black. I reckon there's not as much energy in propane as there is in gasoline so I multiply the price of propane by 1.3 to get a rough equivalent to gasoline. As of July 2024 propane in Victoria B.C. cost $1.29per liter at the Petro Can but I think it's cheaper at the Co-op. Back in 1992 I drove a propane van from Calgary to Minneapolis Minnesota by filling up at the truck stops...got some odd looks from the US folks.
They're REALLY common here in Australia to the point ford had an entire line of PROPANE ONLY vehicles with a redesigned engine with a green valve cover. Ford ecogas. I own one, many were government or company vehicles as mine was. PILES were utes, family car based pick-ups. Mine is a 2008 ford G6 in silver, sedan. Mine is the last of the carburettor style then they went to injected gas (ecoLPI engine) until September 2016 when manufacturing ended here. The New Zealanders use natural gas converted vehicles but here in Australia it's LPG (propane and butane mix). Can't use them in well below freezing like heavy snow areas but with frosts it's fine. Si I'm good bur high altitude areas you either have a dual fuel car or diesel or gasoline. Mine is 4.0 6 cylinder but goes like a V8 because of dual variable cam timing. The UK, Russia, korea and many countries use propane. Hyundai's in korea have injected propane but unfortunately they haven't bought them here. BUT if you get the same size and type of engine, they'll convert fairly well.
Btw oil changes are needed just as often and the propane causes acidic oil so we have specific engine oil for the converted ones.
Because there is more money is gasoline/oil. Cars that run on hydrogen were invented in the 1980s. There was a solar powered car in the 1990s. There are many more examples of this. Usually oil or car companies purchase the rights to the patent for astronomical amounts of money just to shelve the idea. Other times when the inventor refuses to sell, they end up dead from mysterious circumstances. There is a long long history of these things happening. Change is expensive to begin with and when so many people are making money hand over fist with the current arrangement, most will be resistant to change.
The real number is... Slightly more than a standard carb.
Better burn efficiency = more mpg
Less power = more mpg
Just a guess but i would say probably around a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency but your left with a slower, more expensive, complex car that could explode at any moment.
Maybe the object of the exercise was to go short on oil share, then manipulate a price drop with a scare.
My dad had a mechanical drawing of the carb. I remember seeing it as a kid, and he explained it to me. Burn the same amount of gas, but being more in a vaporous state it burns better, more completely, thus giving an increase in fuel efficiency without robbing the power of that volume of gasoline. It may not give you 200mpg, but it'll definitely increase your mileage. So, for anyone who is skeptical, build one. Doesn't look hard to do. Then everyone can discuss how good it really is.
What Poque probably invented was a way to reliably atomize fuel at very lean ratios when the engine was operating at near steady-state conditions -kinda like the various "lean burn" technologies that were invented in the 1970s during the oil crisis. That might make it possible to hypermile in "economy race" conditions, with the engine at near-constant RPM, and at optimal load, more reliably than with a regular, general-purpose carburetor, biut likely it wouldn't offer any advantages under varying load or hard acceleration. It would just be better than a "regular" carburetor under very specific conditions.
Yes, I think the concept of 100% fuel efficiency is not in the realm of this subject, as to this day we're still miles away, so far that a solid 10% improvement would be VERY significant.
I agree with you that it's highly likely that he found a better delivery system for fuel load in complex engine conditions. Only recently has a better way of atomizing fuel through a ventury system in a low speed air stream been implemented. REF: Smart carbi.
Most fuel injection systems set their air/fuel mixtures, at 14.63:1. That's also the number of air's psi at sea level. Coincidence?
I suspect that it probably did work, but not to anything like the extent of the publicity, and came with negatives (expense, reliability, safety) that meant it ultimately wasn't worth pursuing.
All it did is make the motor run extremely lean...that's fine for very low engine speed....but your not gonna get any real power because you have to add fuel to make more power
An important factor that most miss with the Pogue and other "super Carb's" is the fuel chemistry. Back in the old days before the first energy Crisis in 1973, gasoline had chemistry that made it much easier to vaporise. The refiners changed that in winter of '73-'74 so they could use more of the heavier hydrocarbon chains in gasoline. These bigger molecules require different conditions to evaporate into vapor, compared to the short chain HC's. This change in gasoline chemistry did then and will still defeat Vaporising carburetors like the famous Pogue,.
But Ron Hatton created a modern solution to this- the Gadgetman Groove. the Groove is applicable to virtually all gas engines today, and many carburetors too..
one US gallon of gasoline contains 371.5 grams of hydrogen, so 200 MPG of gasoline would be 538.36 miles per kilogram of hydrogen ( 200 ÷ 0.3715 ) or 1.86 grams of hydrogen per mile, that would be impressive. For the EVangelists that would be 16.15 miles per kwh.
I bought 2 books in 1985 that had about 25 designs of high mileage fuel systems..65mpg was the lowest…205mpg was pogue ..
A typical ICE operates at 35% efficiency, so theoretically there is the potential to almost triple its efficiency, without getting more energy out, than you put in.
What happened to Volkswagens long run high fuel efficiency diesel engine. It had come out in a few autos in Europe but then was quickly hushed up and all the cars were pulled and replaced with standard diesel engine that got about a half to one third the normal mileage.
Popular Mechanics did an article back in the 1970's during the 73 Arab oil embargo. It was a great article, with the carb mounted to a Ford's front fender. Very little information went into what was required to make it work. Liquid gasoline has a good heat content, although diesel is at the top of the thermal content.
The requirement for adequate performance and economy from this carburetor by vaporizing the fuel would require a definite amount of energy to keep the engine running at idle and at 70 MPH it would require a tremendous amount more. So unless this carburetor can store a lot of vapor for full throttle acceleration, it won't work. Add in the weight of the vehicle, rolling resistance, friction and air resistance which all contribute to decreasing MPG while driving. The article in Popular Mechanics mentioned that Polk sold the invention to the oil companies which lead a lot of people to believe it was a conspiracy. Never saw any followup articles in P.M. or Popular Science, or Mechanics Illustrated or any other magazines. Wish I still had that article right now.
Ill see if I can find any info thanks😁
Are you the Chris who exposed Volkswagen's fudged diesel numbers?
Air fuel mixtures can run much leaner in engines with no crankshaft like the Burke engine that actually runs on detonation, not the slow burning in regular combustion engines.
There is no such thing as an engine without a crankshaft, do you mean camshaft because if you do your still wrong.
@The0utmode 🤣🤣🤣🤣 👍
You reminded me of people that said we couldn't fly! 🤣🤣
There is the scotch-yoke system and the wobleplate system. Surpise! 🤣🤣😎🤙👍
@The0utmode Not to mention the invention of another water piston engine besides the rototary one. Another engine design that is my favorite internal combustion engine spins water tangently inside a cylinder 🌀. The hole in the middle is like the top of the piston , and compression of the air/fuel is forced by the water coming into the cylinder. The high pressure from detonation forces the pressurized water through a hydraulic motor. Cool, huh? 😎
@@jamesbishop9156 All those systems use a central shaft to turn the energy made from the engine into rotational motion aka a crankshaft! An engine without a crankshaft is like a human with no spine. It's not going very far.
@The0utmode do you know what a crank is? It's like a lever on a shaft that causes rotational torque on the shaft. Yes, everything has a shaft for output, but not every shaft has a lever/piston rod that causes side loading on the cylinder walls. Get it? Got it? Good! 🤣🤙👍😎
There is no such thing as a 200 MPG caburetor. You would need to design a 200 MPG engine, none to date as of yet. We don't have a 200 MPG motorcycle, How could we have a 2000- 3000 lb. car get insane mileage?
Think again
The current record is more than 1000km per litre. You would not want to drive such a car.
Look up economy races in the 60s/70s ;-)
Exactly correct. And for a clown to claim 200 miles per gallon in the 1930s is absolutely insane. Engines are MUCH more efficient today, and 200 mpg is still impossible for a normal, driveable car.
Imagine how lean that engine would run, and what about durability of the engine itself?
I see a lot of burned holes in pistons and cremated exhaust valves.
❤❤❤❤very interesting video thanks
Persheo(not right spelling) has been getting 120mpg for 20yrs now out of a crappy little 4cyl diesel, so it is possible 😅
Internal combustion engines are not efficient, and create waste in the form of heat. A 50cc scooter might get 100-120 mpg on a good day, no way in hell are you getting 200 mpg in an automobile.
To Author, you just run more than one carby or more throats in the carby, it's actually 'more' fuel efficient to spread one carby over multiple cylinders, I have proved this in my rally car 😅😅
Nicola Tesla was also a victim of it, abandoned and demoralized, cause wanted to grant humanity with free energy...
Tesla was mostly a fraud. He improved a few things, invented a useful thing, but overall was very mentally unstable and spent more money on nonsense than he ever did on anything else. The modern lore around tesla is mostly nonsense fueled by "i did my own research" idiots on the internet. Tesla failed to finish more projects than anything else.
No he wasn't. That's another myth. He thought he had something but in reality he hadn't, because he wasn't a very good scientist or mathematician.
Study some basic physics lol
@GRAHAMAUS Neither was einstein.
@@GRAHAMAUSyour ignorance is astounding.. TH-cam won’t let me tell you what I really think . So I’ll leave it at that
Cheers Chris, don't think it was possible. Looking at the one off VW doing under one liter per 100 km was a huge feat and 70 years don't think it was possible, not even today it seems. And to top it off, those cars had horrible cw values, boxy and square, so, no way.
👍💪✌
A brother in-law that I personally spoke with told me he invented a solid state relay that would never wear out. He was paid over a million dollars from a railroad company that has kept his invention off the free market. They would rather let people die from a failed relay to keep selling the planned obsolescence relays. This was just a couple of years ago. It's not a conspiracy, it's the truth. 😢
@@jamesbishop9156 sad...
You can run a solid state relay in combination with a mechanical relay. engage the ssr first, then engage the mech relay, then disengage the ssr. this way there's no arcing to destroy the contacts, extending the life of both by an order of magnitude.. then to switch off, you engage the ssr, disengage the mech relay, then disengage the ssr.
@martin-vv9lf Sweet! I love it! Now, if only the dumb asses could get it! 🤣😁🤙
Utter bullshit!
Solid state relays have been available for AC current since about 6 months after the invention of the silicon controlled rectifier!
Don't speak about subjects you have absolutely zero knowledge of.
They already have high power solid state relay.
It is dry fuel..not wet manifold like other cars..wet fuel is changed outside the engine. Then put in the air as dry state… 200 to one air fuel ratio..
He just made a petrol mono injector that was exploding with the back fire from the inlet walves, for sure at the time would have drunk less than any motor in circulation.. just a though.
Liquid gas is flammable yet the fumes of gasoline is
The great thing about these videos is anyone with basic knowledge on this subject knows from the get go that it's absolutely not possible. So one gets to sit here watching this knowing that Chris is either lying or has been duped into believing something really silly. Either way, grab the popcorn and laugh at this cuz none of this is real world applicable.
Studebaker was getting 100mpg back in the 1940s. It’s well documented..
@@hondaxl250k0 yeah that might be possible if it's making 5hp going 100 miles downhill
@@user-lx1nh7gg8o no it was on level ground . In a 1 mile circle. Look it up the information is out there..
@@hondaxl250k0 100mpg+ has definitely been done in purpose built hypermiler situations. That's not the same thing as saying you can bolt on one part and get 200mpg.
@@bradley3549 it was done on a standard production inline 6. That was the rules of the competition.. many other companies competed. With very similar results..
Doubt there is a 200 mile long down hill slope to test this theory..😂😂
Vapor engines aren't new Uncle Tony's garage has done video on vapor engines, i think uncle tony knows something about or was involved with one.
The only way something like this could happen is if his device found a way to do something on the atomic level. If the device sent monatomic hydrogen into the combustion chamber then yes the device would produce more than theoretically possible as diatomic hydrogen has less energy that monatomic hydrogen does. Plus if the device also produced monatomic oxygen from the incoming air supply again it would have a greater energy content than diatomic oxygen does.
Did he manage to do something like this? Who knows? But that is the only way I could see his claims being valid as then the science adds up.
The new version of this is the "running the engine on fumes" philosophy. Still not going to obtain 200mpg.
There is veracity in his statements of increased mileage. However, he was not in charge of the inflated claims of the reportage by those whose job it is to gild every lily and scream "Murder!" at every papercut in order to sell newspapers.
The real differences are attributable to the misunderstanding of the application of the 14.5-1 to 16.1 air to fuel ratio. They were never accurate when applied to a wet fuel delivery system but are truly accurate on a molecular or gaseous delivery. His invention delivered a dry fuel ratio instead of the less refined wet type. Other types of more modern carburation such as the Carter ThermoQuad achieved significant gains by heating the fuel gently with the waste heat in the cooling system. Another was a more finely metered device with 19 different adjustments to the fuel flow , also showing significant gains. I speak of the WCFB Carter. These were phased out after a short while when fuel injection moved out of the cruder, almost reliable, mechanical form to the electrical manipulation sort. Injection point of entry still has adherents in many different places for different reasons. His later in life denials were likely to avoid hearing all the same crap over again and to avoid getting himself killed for admitting the truth.
Do a video on the upcoming mr2 please
I saw a local news story many years ago whereby this guy said he had his Cadillac with a huge engine getting crazy good gas milage. He was being interviewed and had the hood open. The engine looked as if it had miles of hoses in it. This story aired once, and he and this story never amounted to anything. I assume he was bought out or threatened. I suspected he was processing the exhaust and re-burning the unburnt fuel and although his calculations may not have been as good as he claimed I still think they were way better than they are now even. Why are we told there is a fuel shortage and we are harming the environment with co2 yet speed limits are increasing. Makes absolutely no sense. Its all about money and nothing else.
Very interesting.
I believe he probably got lower than 100 mpg because others have come close. That's still quite enough to silence him
While it may be slightly more efficient, in reality, its really just limiting how much gas it allows you to put in the engine. The equivalent of just using a light touch on the throttle. Power decreases MPG. So this carb just decreases power.
Exactly, this is why some people are overly skeptical and others, believe two magnets and a spark plug makes a machine to power a house.
All the factor need to be included to determine whether something is what it is implied to be.
It's like "I found an invention that genuinely cut 1/4 off my F250's fuel Bill!"
A TOYOTA COROLLA! LOL
I knew a man that made a carb that did 100+. It was sold to a company and taken away. Ripley Tennessee, Drumwright was the mans last name
There is a problem when talking about internal combustion energy today and drawing informed comparison about what was before the introduction of emissions control concepts.
Even in an engine with the latest conceptual technology, running hydrogen gas, the combustion temperature has to be regulated to less than the optimal combustion needs. This is because combustion at certain temperature and above cause carbon based combusables to produce nox and various exceedingly harmful gases. While hydrogen is pure clean burning any thing else in the atmosphere is not, such as the traces of lubricants that are unavoidably present in an engine. Catalytic converters are one way of mitigating the worst gases but relative to the life of an engine, the longevity and performance of them is extremely poor. Added to that is the significant high cost of such devices, due to their magic being the result of very precious metals inside.
I'm sceptical of those that use only numbers to discredit a claim, I'm also very sceptical of many claims. Early vehicles were comparable with vehicles of the last 20 years in relation to "highway mileage", overall speed and power were arguably lacking, but in the absence of emissions requirements I'm sure there were many concepts developed that were better than what was produced and commonly fitted to engines. The fact that configuration of engines can vary widely, could mean that an extremely good induction system, far better than original fitment, was realized many times, I'm sure this has been an oversight in many a debate as to something being Truth or Tale.
We can get 100 mpg, but from uni student projects and not commercially viable products, it's just too hard to harness all the energy released when detonating fossil fuel! Light, heat and sound are good examples of waist, when an engine can run whisper quite without a muffler you will be very close to all that petroleum can deliver. F1 technology is harnessing uncontained expanding pressure and heat with turbo technology and metals that flow electrons when heated, but this is currently expensive tech. The truth is an engines efficiency is reliant on every part and equation relative to each part, from just in front of the intake, to the tip of the exhaust. Manufacturing constraints (physical financial) and industry regulations plus some other factors, mean there is almost always room for improvement!
200mpg = roughly 0.16kw per mile.
On dead flat pavement, with tires that weren't available yet, and aerodynamics only available in aircraft... maybe.
In a car that weighs 200 pounds, tires at 300 psi, downhill with a tailwind. Maybe. And would have the acceleration of a snail. Whoopie, what fun to drive!
@quantumleap359 - some people just don't understand simple math.
A gallon of gasoline only has so much stored energy.
Depending upon how fast that energy is converted to mechanical energy
will give you a pretty good idea of how far and how fast you will be able to travel.
The quicker the energy is converted, the faster you will accelerate. The slower the energy is converted the further you can travel.
There simply is not enough stored energy in a gallon of gasoline, even with a 100% conversion rate, ( Which is impossible ) to move even a very light vehicle 200 miles, as is claimed.
Only nuclear energy has that much stored energy, and even then there is considerable loss in it's conversion from heat energy to mechanical energy.
Large electric motors will convert electrical energy to mechanical energy at about 97 %, however there is also significant losses in generating electrical energy, and transmitting it to point of use.
I know it sucks, but the laws of physics are pretty well established.
No matter what the source of energy, it is limited, and reduced in power, every time it is converted from one form to another.
Entropy wins every time !!!
Tim
For now....
Blud got ops. Big oil
IF a car could get 200 mph, i think people would drive more, the economy would improve because shipping would be cheaper. More people would be able to afford to drive and increase oil consumption.
Just a thought what if his device created flammable hydrogen and mixed with the fuel in cylinder and doubled the amount of combustibles ? Just an idea ,not a scientist
Hi Chris and all. You'll like Patrick Kelly's ' Practical Guide to Free Energy Devices" free pdf download..
Best to all
Actually every LPG powered car use such a “carburetor”:)
I've got the literature and blueprint....
200 mpg on what, and how much did it weigh? Fuel injection kicks its ass.
What's the current world record for distance travelled on a gallon of gasoline - isn't it somewhere around the 5000 mile mark ??
Weight and aerodynamics.
....sooo....what ever happened to the guy that created this?
If it "didn't work" why was he silenced
Chris
Is it possible to get hold of you via email?
I am a 66yo engineer from the karoo.
I do like these kinds of videos. Good research and a balanced take on this, thanks for going to the effort. . (dumbass kid!) hehe
I agree. The stoichiometric mix is optimum, from my limited knowledge of this design, I believe he was pre-heating the air/fuel mix to acheive a true vapour gas, not just fuel droplets in the mix?
If your car got 100 miles to the gallon..they could not stripe the roads…taxes from gas sale…
First the 396 Opel WAS NOT RUNNING A Poque Carb, it was a running a lawn mower carb and a bunch of other tricks to get that mileage, it was a rigged trial.
Second a ELECRONIC CONTEOLLED FUEL INJECTED car can run a very low RPMs like 1000, and at very high air fuel ratios, I have gotten 35MPG at 16.4: 1 at 65MPH at 1700RPMs in a 2000 Mercury Grand Marques any time I wanted to. That car was able to do 27/30MPG stock at 65MPH.
First 100% fact, liquid gasoline DOES NOT BURN!!! An old demo is throwing a burning match into a cold bucket of gasoline and the result is a put out match.
100% FACT is only gasoline vapors burn.
OK here is the theory/facts behind this claim.
ONLY vapor burns, but getting gasoline into a vapor sate is not easy, so cars rely on the fuel droplets vaporizing on their own, in carbs some happened on their way through the carb and though the warm to hot intake manifold there was vaporizing by mixed with air from the carb to the combustion chamber.
Some might be also happening with Throttle Body Injection The injectors are on top of a normal carb like intake manifold) but there is some little time for the air and fuel to mix on its way to the combustion chamber.
This no longer happens with port injection and direct injection. Port injection happens at the intake valve and modern cars are timing that to happen at the point of the opening valve.
But Port injection in the early GM 1985 to 1990 Tuned Port Injection system did do a funny thing, inject fuel onto the hot intake valve which help vaporize the fuel more before the valve opened….
That is no longer done, So now we have to now rely totally on the heat in the combustion chamber to try to convert the fuel to vapor, note there is no real time so only 20 to 30% gets converted.
Also gas burning in an ICE (internal Combustion Engine) needs a lot of lead time so we start this burning up to 40+ degrees BEFORE Top Dead Center, and sadly it keeps burning after the power stroke and as it exits the engine and then in the exhaust manifold and so on. The left over still burning fuel is ALL wasted. Even Exhaust Gas Return does only used very little of this.
This is what the catalytic convertor burns.
Vapor on the other hand burns very fast, and needs no advance start to its burning, so it can be fired AT TDC and then can product full power for the power stroke from TDC (top Dead Center) to BDC (Bottom dead center) And it can be almost all consumed at that point so there is NO burning fuel exiting the engine.
How much does 1 gallon of liquid gasoline displace as a vapor? The saturated vapor volume of an average gallon of liquid gasoline when fully evaporated is 160 gallons of vapor at 60° F and sea level. When you convert 1 gallon of gasoline into 160 gallons of highly combustible fuel vapor you increase your nation’s fuel supply by 16,000% (16,000% of 1 is 160). If you paid $5 for just one gallon of liquid gasoline you would actually only be paying $0.03 (3 cents) per gallon of fuel vapor.
So this will use a much lesser amount of fuel (perhaps only 30%) to do the same work and none is wasted so the extra 60 to 80% is not needed.
It is also written in some tech articles that because of the requirement for a catalytic convertor it MUST be fed some gasoline to operate and to insure this happens 100% of the time our cars are programed to a touch run rich 100% of the time and that 14.7 is only ideal FOR THE catalytic convertor not for the engine nor MPG.
The sad thing is today’s fuel injection could give much better MPG if only programed to do so.
The only problem with a lean burn of 16/17 to 1 is NOX, and it can be fixed with more EGR or water injection.
A car running on pure vapor has a few problems to overcome, 1) using exhaust heat will fail if it does start to run on pure vapor as the exhaust heat drops like rock as there is no burning gasoline in it. So the vapor system shuts down until the heat returns running normally, on and off operation.
2) And independent heat system is needed, electric heating seems to only system.
3) There can be no vapor when the engine is not running, all vapor much be burned before engine is stopped. Escaping vapor is what causes under the hood explosions. So controls to insure this and electronic control of metering and shutting off all fuel in needed.
4) To vaporize current gasoline takes a very high temp and carries a risk of fuel burning at the touch of air, so it has to be make in an air tight system.
5) If as claimed a ICE on Pure Vapor will thus run a lot colder than normal, an extra heating system may be needed for cabin heat in colder areas.
This is some of my best understanding on this subject.
200 miles plus was achievable , but not in any car. I got an average of 225 miles per gallon on my 50 cc Honda Cub motorbike in 1967..😂
Slick 50... Went from 20mpg
Too 32mpg. 1964 Dodge dark slant six.
Patent Sold to Russland
This thing looks eerily similar to the jo cell but two jo cells in a single unit.
The Jo cell was invented 50 or 60 years later and it worked well. That is until the men in black suits paid a visit and it was silenced????
I was hoping for a more pragmatic science-based description of how it was supposed to work. This is just an armchair speculation.
It won't work
What happend to all carburetors is fuel injection, end of story.
Let me just stop you right there. There is no such thing.
The amount of potential energy contained in gasoline is a well known fact. There is no way to increase that. Every example of these things are complete nonsense.
Now get on with your life..
Oh yes it happened. Mister revisionest . ! YOU HAD BETTER BET YOUR ASS IT HAPPENED .
230 MPG TESTED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1935 .
IN EVERY NEWSPAPER OF THE TIME .!
DON GARTLETS professional drag racer KNOWS ALL from the begining ..! 10:59
Smokey Yunick also experimented with heating fuel, I think in a Fiero, if memory serves me correctly.
Click repellent.
Pure unadulterated bull crap. The basic laws of physics apply, even to this guy. I might also note that there is a lot more to engine efficiency than a carburetor.
There are simply not enough BTUs in a gallon of gasoline to move a car 200 miles. Pure and simple. This is 100% fantasy. Stories like this have been goping around for decades upon decades. Not a word of truth to them.
The bottom line is this; The higher the compression ratio at the time of ignition, the more power can be extracted from the air/fuel mixture. Detonation is the maximum power output caused by the maximum compression of the particular fuel being compressed to the point of self-detonation. Take this to the bank! 👍🩷😎💚
@@jamesbishop9156 According to David Vizard, Water injection at the right droplet size can take care of this little problem of detonation. I would think it would also be keeping the temperatures below 2500°F, during the combustion process, knocking out oxides of nitrogen formation with the added benefit of steam cleaning the engine from the inside out. Not to mention this steam helping to push the piston down each cycle increasing power and mileage.
@johnwyman6126 Water injection is putting water on a fire. It puts it out. The large amount of energy it takes to change water to a gas/steam is wasted energy. It is not as efficient as the power of detonation alone. It's just a steam-powered hybrid. The small water droplets are used to stop detonation, not enhance the power of detonation.
To me the Pogue Carburetor is the predecessor to using Propane to run a Vehicle
I've mastered internal combustion engines and rockets. Been there, done that...
I'm doing bigger and better things now... I hope my gifts will be accepted by all in the very near future. AWOMAN! 👍🩷😎💚