PDA

View Full Version : Gasoline MPG facts and proof.



ClassicMan
2008-Jun-16, 09:55 PM
I would like to start out about this topic because of the high cost of fuel and my insane interest in classic american cars plus my interest in history has kept my researching the 'controversy of 100+ miles get gallon of gas. Now I will start off with what my high school science teacher told me about the chemical energy of gasoline. He told me that you can go 70 miles on a PINT of gasoline in theory. That is how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline. You run into a few problems that keeps most people from believing the 100+ mile per gallon urban legend. 1st is that most of the energy turns into heat. Take your own observations about gasoline. Like most compounds it is less reactive in liquid state. It needs to heat up to vaporize then explode. Gasoline when you dump it on a fire it takes a while to burn, thus creates alot of heat and most is wasted as heat. Now another side to the nickle. Why is there a universal thought that gasoline is more dangerous in a VAPOR state? Well it is. the first internal combustion engine ever made in Germany in the 1880's used kerosine vapors, not liquid. Internal combustion engines were designed to originally burn gas not liquid. How does refineries process gasoline into several octanes? by CRACKING the molecules into smaller elements then mixing them with other grade of octanes. Hence the octane level. If you can make your car like a refinery 'cracking' gasoline into smaller molecules you would get a quicker reaction hence less burning more explosion. If gasoline is completely burned it is to create just TWO gases. Carbon dioxide (alot less then even the most modern car expells) and water. They talk about carbon monoxide. Why? carbon monoxide has chemical energy in its structure, meaning carbon monoxide is a by product of UNBURNT fuel. When gasoline is heated it expands and becomes more reactive. Gasoline burns faster and more efficiently in a vapor state but after a Canadian called Charles Nelson Pouge invented 3 carburetors that got over 100 mpg and the news caused the Canadian oil stock prices to drop and got bought out some think, they started to add lead and other chemicals to gasoline which when you heat the gas the additives coat the heating elements. The idea of over 900 US Patents is to use the heat from the motor car to heat the gas to about 450 degrees to crack it and filter out the additives with nickle, palladium (sp), rhodidium (sp), and titanium, then you can run a motor 20/1-30/1 and leaner. The bad side to this is that as Charles Pouge told a reporter right before his first patent was to expire he said you would have to sacrifice acceleration. Like with his last patent that uses exhaust heat to crack the gas before being mixed with the air that claimed 200 MPG. He said if you dont mind taking 10 minutes to accelerate 0-30 mph then it would work but is not as dangerous as a standard carburetor because it vaporized fuel on demand. Tom Ogle in 1976 had a 70 ford with a 351 V8 that got over 100 miles per gallon by doing the same thing. and This you can find out by going to the El Paso Texas library and reading the articals fron 1976 to 1978 where Tom once stated a representative from Shell Oil asked what he would do with 25 MILLION dollars. he refused and not long after died of a drug overdose and had his vapor system patented also. See the idea is to heat gas to crack it and then you get a larger explosion and not letting liquid in the cylinders because that has to heat up before exploding. Those of you who had to wait to warm up an auto should be able to understand that gas is more reactive the hotter it is. Gasoline will not explode unless in contact with oxygen. If its heated to the point of auto ignition just under 500 degrees it will revert back to a liquid. To put some meat on this beast check out the US Patent website and check out this website.

http://fuelvapors.com/

just on a side note. One of my cars is a 1959 Buick LeSabre 2 door sedan body style 4411. The guy I bought it from knew about Charles Pouges carburetors. His dad was a Buick dealer in St Paul Nebraska in the 40's and 50's. In his words he said his dad had one of the Pouge Carburetors on his 48 Buick Roadmaster and could drive for months on a tank of gas, and he drove alot. One day his car wouldnt start and he found out his Pouge Carburetor was gone. He bought one directly from Pouge I imagine. Pouge told his neigbors, friends, and family about his discovery and not long later ended up the manager of a oil filter company and wouldnt talk about his invention and never made another one. His shop was broke into 3 times that I could find out. Just some fruit for thought.

Ivan Viehoff
2008-Jun-17, 01:57 PM
Snake oil, I would suggest.

An appreciation of the efficiency of modern internal combustion engines would suggest that such large gains in efficiency cannot be gained merely by better carburation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Engine_Efficiency

The sellers of the information appear to have unusual motives of a kind which do not inspire confidence.
http://fuelvapors.com/best/main_pages/why.htm

Moreover appealing to cover-up and conspiracy theory does not inspire confidence - why should it affect carmakers in other countries? The patent registers contain many (perhaps mainly) impractical and unworkable patents.

geonuc
2008-Jun-17, 04:09 PM
With regard to the thread title ...

'proof' of what?

mike alexander
2008-Jun-17, 04:31 PM
I don't think you really want an explosion, unless the sound of your engine knocking makes you feel good. Fast burn, yes, boom, no.

mugaliens
2008-Jun-17, 05:38 PM
Wow.

First, how does one achive 0 posts?

Second, how does one manage to combine 869 words in a single paragraph? That feat is so absolutely amazing (and unintelligible) that I am not worthy of reading it!

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-17, 05:45 PM
Wow.

First, how does one achive 0 posts?
The post counter never made it to the end of the post to count it as a whole one.

Kaptain K
2008-Jun-17, 07:44 PM
What this guy doesn't know about internal combustion would fill a book.

What he's got wrong would fill two!

mike alexander
2008-Jun-17, 07:47 PM
Perhaps it runs on nitrogen.

peter eldergill
2008-Jun-17, 07:56 PM
Any bets on whether this is copied and pasted from another website/forum?

Pete

Moose
2008-Jun-17, 08:26 PM
Google doesn't seem to think so, not yet at least.

Graybeard6
2008-Jun-18, 04:09 AM
A lot of his information may have been gleaned from this http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm site. Or maybe not, since he doesn't seem to have done enough research to discover how to spell "Pogue". In the 1950s, when I was a teenager, my gearhead friends and I discovered this "miracle carburetor" and were set straight by our fathers, most of whom were machinists (except for the one we only saw on weekends because he was busy building the first commercial nuclear power plant).
When GB, Jr. was in his twenties, we were talking about screwy automotive ideas; I mentioned the Pogue carburetor and he said "OK, I'll bite, what's a carburetor?"

sarongsong
2008-Jun-18, 04:45 AM
Back to the drawing board...
...Most gasoline-powered engines...can't produce a mechanical efficiency higher than 20%. The most efficient one in the world is still in the prototype stage...The NEVIS (New Exhaust Valve & Intake System) engine is presented by the makers as having nearly doubled the fuel efficiency attained by conventional internal combustion engine technologies...
softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Does-the-World-039-s-Most-Efficient-Internal-Combustion-Engine-Work-60423.shtml)

Kebsis
2008-Jun-18, 05:17 AM
You should invent a system that will allow cars to run on massive blocks of text, you would be a millionaire.

Tedward
2008-Jun-18, 07:21 AM
Here is a thought. Disconnect from the engine all the toys, that is air con, power steering etc. Alternator that will provide the bare minimum and we are assuming efficient radiator and electric fan. Chuck all unnecessary stuff like the trim and the seats and the mother in law. Limit driving to absolutely essential trips only and in low traffic conditions to maximise MPG....


Meanwhile back in the real world. I would have thought that a manufacturer would make a killing in todays climate with such a device? In the UK you would with todays prices at the very least some enterprising would would provide the bumpf FOC just to upset the government tax gatherers.

novaderrik
2008-Jun-18, 10:03 AM
if i can get 30mpg in a 4100 pound 1976 Monte Carlo with the cheapest engine rebuild kit i could find and the cheapest carburetor rebuild i could do- at the ripe old age of 19, no less- than it can't be too hard to get good mileage.

jokergirl
2008-Jun-18, 01:35 PM
From how I understand it, you could technically get better mileage today already.
The factors that delay it are many, though.

Robustness - fuel quality (octane number, for example) is very different throughout the world, and cars have to run acceptably everywhere. Also, engine parts cannot age too rapidly, and electronic sensors are very fickle in a hot and sooty environment.
Safety - similar to that. Car manufacturers are very reluctant to employ not-completely-tested technology. Lawsuits and bad reputation are a big turnoff. Only BMW and Toyota come to mind in actively introducing new engine-related tech in the last few years. Many new developments come from the racing world, where you don't have to be careful on the same level and can beta-test at the same time.
Cost - parts have to be as cheap as possible to give the car manufacturers a margin that's enough to survive. Lower cost also means lower part quality, which means less sensitivity and higher spread.
And of course, people who can't afford high fuel prices also can't afford a painfully more expensive car.

If you had really figured out a safe, cheap way to increase fuel efficiency, I'm sure you could make a lot more money from just the patent fees the car industry would be forced to pay you than by selling it on the consumer market...

;)

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jun-18, 10:29 PM
<snip> he refused and not long after died of a drug overdose and had his vapor system patented also.
Interesting action to take after dieing:)

danscope
2008-Jun-19, 03:53 AM
Perhaps someone should tell him about detonation, and the astonishing effect
this has on crankshafts, wrist pins, connecting rods and the beeeg holes in pistons !!!!!!

If you wanted to get more out of gasoline engines, take the waste heat and
dump it into a sterling cycle motor to generate more electricity , along with the electricity made by the gas motor, all of which charge the battery of a hybrid vehicle. Now, you "will" get what you paid for. It might work particularly well in cold climates.....big differential temperatures, efficient condenser.
Now you're talking.

Best regards, Dan

farmerjumperdon
2008-Jun-19, 12:33 PM
Now I will start off with what my high school science teacher told me about the chemical energy of gasoline. He told me that you can go 70 miles on a PINT of gasoline in theory. That is how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline.

Without any regard for the weight being moved or gearing differences or anything else?

I mean, one of those little .029 model airplane engines probably could power an ittly-bitty car and get mega mileage; but put it in an Electra 225 Ltd it might be another story.

Moose
2008-Jun-19, 12:49 PM
There's a mileage competition that came up on my radar a couple of times over the past few years, where they were given a cup of gas and had to go as far as possible. The winner did, IIRC, over 100 miles on that cup, but the vehicle wasn't much heavier than a bicycle. That's about all I remember, though. If I can find a reference to it, I'll post it.

cjl
2008-Jun-19, 03:04 PM
Well, here's (http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/361/7-000-mpg-car-wins-eco-marathon.html) one car that gets a mileage of ten miles per teaspoon...

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-19, 03:23 PM
Well, here's (http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/361/7-000-mpg-car-wins-eco-marathon.html) one car that gets a mileage of ten miles per teaspoon...

How did that number suddenly jump ~250% ?

We chalked up the 3000mpg as being rounding on this discussion here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/73149-mpg-up-ante.html) about the exact same thing, and now they are claiming 7000?

cjl
2008-Jun-19, 03:29 PM
Maybe because your link appeared to be a high school competition?

(I really don't know why the difference - I'll see if I can find something more)

EDIT: yeah, it looks like 7000 is correct. Not quite sure about the 3000 number though.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-19, 03:40 PM
Maybe because your link appeared to be a high school competition?
Hard to tell. They both reference "THE" Eco-Marathon, and both reference it as a "yearly" event, but they claim different winners and say the competitions are held around the world.
But; 2843mpg was mentioned as a record without specifying a category.

Can we say "bad reporting"...?

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jun-19, 03:59 PM
How did that number suddenly jump ~250% ?

We chalked up the 3000mpg as being rounding on this discussion here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/73149-mpg-up-ante.html) about the exact same thing, and now they are claiming 7000?

The 7000 mpg is definitely due to rounding, it should have read 7,148 mpg:)

farmerjumperdon
2008-Jun-19, 04:56 PM
Holy Fossil-Fuel-Dependency Batman!

cjl
2008-Jun-19, 05:15 PM
Hmm...

Here's an official results page showing 10,517 mpg:
http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/responsible_energy/shell_in_the_society/social_investment/eco_marathon/results/shell_eco_marathon_2007_results.html

Even assuming that's imperial gallons (as it is a UK competition), that's 8757 per US gallon (and 11.4 miles per teaspoon).

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-19, 05:23 PM
Here's an official results page showing 10,517 mpg:
http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/responsible_energy/shell_in_the_society/social_investment/eco_marathon/results/shell_eco_marathon_2007_results.html

Finally, some details. July 2007? I think we just added another race in this yearly event.
This must be an entire series of races throughout the year. They really don't make too much too clear.

Even assuming that's imperial gallons (as it is a UK competition), that's 8757 per US gallon (and 11.4 miles per teaspoon).
Considering that its MPG for a solar vehicle, I really don't think it matters that much. That's probably the distance it went while the cup of gasoline evaporated under the windshield.

cjl
2008-Jun-19, 05:36 PM
Nope.


Best Gasoline: Microjoule, 10,517mpg

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-19, 05:50 PM
Nope.
Ow, I skipped right passed that one. I saw it as overall, but assumed it would have been another technology like ESSTIN.

cjl
2008-Jun-19, 06:01 PM
Yeah - I'm not quite sure what the reason for a "mpg" number for solar is though.

The other thing that surprises me is that I would have expected diesel to be closer to gasoline, rather than a third of the mileage.

Oh - as for the series of races? From what I can tell, there's one in the Americas, one for the UK (the one I just linked to), and a separate European one, at least based on this (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-marathon-en&FC2=/eco-marathon-en/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn1_0_0.html&FC3=/eco-marathon-en/html/iwgen/welcome_global.html) website.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jun-19, 06:09 PM
In 1977, Shell organised the first competition at Mallory Park essentially for student teams. In 1978 the competition grew further and an open class was introduced.

Over the years, the fuel economy record has been rapidly improved. The most recent record was set at the 2003 event by team Microjoule from St Sebastien/Loire in France. They achieved a fuel consumption figure of 10,705 miles per gallon - beating the previous record set by the same team in 2001 by nearly 500 mpg.
Microjoule where actually 200 mpg down from their previous record.

The problem here is that it's measured over 10 miles, so the mileage is estimated by measuring 1/100th gallon, which is likely to result in quite a large error.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-19, 06:48 PM
The problem here is that it's measured over 10 miles, so the mileage is estimated by measuring 1/100th gallon, which is likely to result in quite a large error.
Plus; is there a rule that they have to be going at least as fast at the end as they were in the begining? I don't know how much you could help, but it could be a factor.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jun-19, 11:51 PM
This is jackaffery. With the f's being s's. This mythical carb has been dis-proven continuously by everyone worth their salt in physics and automotive engineering. Why it persists is wishful thinking. And everyone knows someone whose uncle had one of these things and it got stolen and the oil companies were involved. Do you not think, at this point, that someone would have come up with something similar? A privateer, a college student, someone? no. Of course not. It never existed and never will.

Car and Driver had an article on this a while ago. And if car guys (that know what they're doing - not car guys that think a 350 is the pinnacle of technology) disprove something that could save big giant engines - then think about it a bit. it never happened.

Van Rijn
2008-Jun-20, 12:20 AM
Wow. Yes, it's a myth, and it is an old myth. Between the TEOTWAWKI claims and the magic energy claims, I'm feeling a lot of nostalgia for the '70s. I remember one of the Popular Mechanics / Popular Science competitors had a cover story about a 100mpg super "vapor" carburetor. I think it was asked as a question, like "Is it really possible?" (No.)

I also remember Smokey Yunick in Popular Science explaining why this stuff was impossible. Sure, you can build a lighter, more efficient car, but you couldn't take a conventional car and get that much more energy out of the fuel with carb. tricks. The energy just wasn't available. It was just a slightly less obvious free energy machine claim.

mugaliens
2008-Jun-21, 10:28 AM
Perhaps it runs on nitrogen.

My plants run on nitrogen, so I can't possibly (smirk) see why an IC engine shouldn't be able to do the same... :doh:

mugaliens
2008-Jun-21, 10:32 AM
I wonder what the MPG is for a maglev (in joule equivalents between electrical energy used and chemical energy used)?

ClassicMan
2008-Jun-21, 11:38 PM
yes I am bad with names. That is a strange first name. The way I understand how it works is that cracking gasoline it turns into natural gas and methane with alot smaller molecules. That raises octane and it that is how the vapor system idea is to run cleaner and more efficiently. 1 gallon of gasoline can in turn become 3? gallons of natural gas and methane vapors due to expansion and you can run natural gas and methane leaner then gasoline because of their reactivity.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jun-21, 11:42 PM
Gasoline carries within it a certain amount of BTUs. That cannot and never changes no matter what you do to it. CNG for example has less BTUs than diesel and roughly the same as gasoline - BUT it does not translate to equal performance between gas and CNG within the same engine. Lots of things to consider.

But the point is that "cracking" gasoline does not and cannot deliver more BTUs. in other words the power we get from gasoline cannot be added to.

Ronald Brak
2008-Jun-22, 02:17 AM
Here's some advice on how to save fuel that is actually practical:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/how_to_save_mon.html

It's about the most fuel efficient speed to drive at.

cjl
2008-Jun-22, 03:26 AM
One problem with that is that the graph should actually be car specific - I find that my Outback gets its best mileage at closer to 65mph than 55, and the dropoff between 65 and 75 is insignificant. I have measured my consumption at 29-30mpg at 65mph, and 28-29mpg at 75mph.