How to convert 1 gallon of gasoline into 160 gallons of highly combustible fuel.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The Nebulizer.
160 for one, if a conversion kit comes out it would be great or wait is this another hoax

gas in forme of a vapor
or is it just a plaster solution.

How much does 1 gallon of 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.How an ultrasonic

nebulizer works to convert a liquid to gas.

Using an ultrasonic nebulizer, liquids in a vessel (such as a fuel tank) sit on top of a vibrating element. and a high intensity ultrasound is omitted. As waves move through the liquid, the liquid will begin to be pushed upward, making a small fountain. Off the surface of this fountain small particles will begin to float above the liquid and appear like smoke. This smoke like appearance is actually very fine vapor. If gasoline was used in this process the small particles that would appear like smoke would be very fine gas vapor. To move the very fine particles a small air flow/gas or vacuum is needed – like a small fuel pump or the vacuum that exists in all combustion engines.Is the ultrasonic nebulizer technology to convert liquid gasoline into a more abundant (160 times more) vapor gas safe to use? A fog machine reveals that it is safe as a fog machine is a device which emits a dense vapour that appears similar to fog. This artificial fog is most commonly used in professional entertainment applications. Typically, fog is created by vapourizing proprietary water and glycol-based or glycerine-based fluids or through the atomization of mineral oil. Mineral oil is liquid petroleum which is a liquid by-product of the distillation of petroleum to produce gasoline and other petroleum based products from crude oil. If a fog machine can safely and effectively atomize mineral oil – a by-product of oil – then a similar device like an ultrasonic nebulizer can also safely and effectively atomize 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 160 gallons of gasoline vapor.

This could be good for cars and homes imagine savings, 160 gallons for the price of 1.
Is this a hoax or not.
Link to complet article
presscore.ca...




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


This sounds pretty good, but gaining 159 gallons per single gallon used seems a wee bit steep.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


This is something that needs further research. The old rumors of the "atomizing carburetors' come a similar concept. Fuel Injection is also created from a similar concept.

One area that has gotten a lot of research is "nozzling." I have seen sanitation experts spend thousands of dollars on nozzles that could take a regular pressure washer and turn it into something that would cut concrete. Special nozzles are capable of creating much more fuel vapor out of the same liquid source.

I don't know it this particular nebulizer is a hoax or not, but the concept deserves more research!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I don't see how it would improve fuel economy, all fuel is already vaporized once it passes through the throttle body....



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
That's like saying, "turn 1 pound into 160 pounds." You can't do it...
Something like,"turn 20mpg to 50mpg." Well that's possible...
It's one gallon that would be finely atomized, nothing more nothing less....
Total hoax
edit on 29-5-2011 by JJDoggie84 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Hoax IMO. The engine converts the energy content in the gas into motion. And the energy content of the gallon of gas would not change, it would only be 'diluted' in 160 gallon. Therefore the engine would need more 'gasified gasoline' to produce the same power and motion. It just means that if your car gets 30 mpg, it would get 0.1875 mpg (30 divided by 160). There's no way of tricking thermodynamics laws.

Forgot to say that fuel injection engines already transforms the gas into a fog in the combustion chamber. They use high pressure fuel pumps, which combined with the very small 'hole' of the fuel injector transforms the gas in very fine spray, just like a fog.
edit on 29-5-2011 by ChingLing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
A gallon of gasoline has a known amount of potential energy.


When you burn gasoline under ideal conditions, with plenty of oxygen, you get carbon dioxide (from the carbon atoms in gasoline), water (from the hydrogen atoms) and lots of heat. A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours:

* If you took a 1,500-watt space heater and left it on full blast for a full 24-hour day, that's about how much heat is in a gallon of gas.

* If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!

Source

Here is some interesting data:

We will assume our car weighs 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds).
What Can You Do With a Gallon of Gas?

To raise an object, the energy needed is mgh, where h is the mass of the object, g is the acceleration of gravity (9.8 meters per second squared) and h is the height.

To raise a car weighing 1000 kilograms a distance of 100 meters would require about a million joules. You could raise a car 12.5 kilometers with the energy in a gallon of gas, or drive up 125 100-meter hills. Driving up Pike's Peak (about a 3000-meter climb) should consume about a quart of gas.

But these figures assume you can get all the energy out of a gallon of gas and apply it with perfect efficiency to raising the car. Driving miles of winding road up Pike's Peak is a far cry from simply lifting the car vertically.

It takes energy to accelerate. The energy of a moving object, called kinetic energy, is given by K=1/2mv2, where m is the mass of the object and v is the speed. If a car weighs 1000 kg and accelerates to 60 mph (27 m/sec), the energy required is 365,000 joules. About 350 such accelerations would consume a gallon of gas, assuming you could apply all that energy solely to accelerating the car, which you can't.

Just for fun, in outer space, if you could apply all the energy in a gallon of gas to moving a car with perfect efficiency, you could get 125 million joules = 1/2mv2, and for a 1000-kilogram car you'd have v2 = 250,000 and v = 500 meters per second or 1120 miles per hour.

Source

All in all, with more efficient motors, more conversion of energy, less resistance and friction, 400 mpg cars are entirely possible. We can get there, we just need to upgrade our thinking, and our technology.


If we could get all the energy out of a gallon of gasoline and apply it to overcoming the rolling resistance of a car, we could get about 400 miles per gallon. But the internal engine resistance multiplies the force required by roughly five, meaning the best we could hope for is about 80 miles a gallon. The engineering constraints of getting useful work out of expanding hot gases cuts that figure by 50 per cent to about 40 miles per gallon. So better fuels and fuel injection could improve mileage, but not stupendously.


We have to change our engine structures and our methods of transforming that energy into motion. Gasoline has plenty of power, we are just wasting 90% of it!!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Dont think so, I was under the impression that the gas gets atomized anyways in the carburetor or injector. It is already being turned into vapor... seriously did you think that gas just flows into the cylinder like a squirt gun ?

I could see using the exhaust to power mini generators for some electricity... for something. I know that some cars already use the exhaust to spin a turbo.
edit on 29-5-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Wouldn't the energy contained in that gallon be exactly the same whether it's a gallon or 160 gallon?

Atomizing the gas might make a small difference in combustion but I don't think it would amount to enough to balance out the additional process or storage requirements.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
You need a fuel to air ratio of 14.7 to 1 to get a clean burn in a internal combustion engine.
en.wikipedia.org...

To little fuel in the mix and get a condition call lean misfire and high hydrocarbon emissions,

To much fuel and you get a rich burn and incomplete burn with high hydrocarbon emissions.

Modern computer controlled fuel injected engine give you right mix where you have the cleanest emissions that is 14.7 to `1

This is the law of engines and can not be broken.

So whether you are using 1 gallon of liquid or 160 gallons of gas vapor you only can get the same range.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Do not write this off as a hoax just yet. There may be something to this. At best a car engine only burns about 15 % to 20 % of the fuel used. The rest goes out the tail pipe as " Unburnt Hydrocarbons". We have all heard that term before. Now this new device may not live up to the claim stated but if it could boost that 15% to 20% up to say 50% or better that would still double your mileage. Any gain is still a gain. If it only gave you a few more miles it would still be worth looking in to. This needs to be looked at closer.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Just so everyone knows one of the Google auto X prize entrants used vapor fuel carburetors and jumped their gas mileage a bunch... I don't know why people think the fuel is atomized in normal injectors, it isn't to any real degree. An automotive engineer will even tell you that better injector design and more efficient atomization and ignition could gain quite a bit in the way of power and efficiency.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
This is actually a pretty simple formula, anyone can do it!

You take one gallon of gasoline, add 159 gallons of gasoline, and viola! 160 gallons of highly combustible fuel.

The OP sounds like an extension of what most throttle-bodies already do, just taken to an extreme. Whether practical in a daily driver....

BTW engines are formulated to work with gas from the pump, if you start messing with additives you'll have to tune an engine to deal with those or you'll have serious knock or pinging.
edit on 30-5-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


The energy is the same on each gallon of fuel, however the classical engine is actually throwing away a part of the fuel! Vapours would definitely improve the burning process by increasing the surface of the burning "droplets"



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 

Actually fuel injectors don't atomize or vaporize fuel. What they do is make the stream of fuel so small that some of it turns into vapors. That is the portion that is actually burned in the cylinder. Liquid fuel does not burn at all, so only about 10 to 15 percent of the fuel delivered by the injector is actually burned in the cylinder. The rest of the unburned fuel is wasted. The catalytic converter actually vaporizes the waste fuel which is why there is no liquid fuel coming out of the exhaust. When you first start your car some of those small drops of liquid that come out of the exhaust are unburned gasoline. it takes about 5 minutes for the catalytic converter to heat up enough to vaporize the fuel.
You can flood a car's engine by letting in too much liquid fuel. That all being said, think about it this way in simpler terms. Your engine is only using 10% of the fuel delivered to it. It is also only burning the fuel at 10% efficiency because of the 90% liquid fuel that has to be displaced. If there was only fuel vapor, mixed with air going into the cylinder, you would get an almost 100% burn. The engine would definitely run more efficiently because instead of having to compress mostly liquid, which is very hard to do, the cylinder would only be compressing the vapor, which is much easier. The result would be a cleaner explosion in the cylinder.
One gallon of liquid gasoline vaporizes to 160 gallons. The fuel efficiency of the vehicle would increase drastically. I think if the fuel vapors are put into a tank similar to a hydrogen fuel cell and fed directly into the system, you could have a vehicle that gets over 100 miles to the gallon. Most modern vehicles get about 20 miles to the gallon only burning fuel at a 10% efficiency. Raise the efficiency of the fuel burned by any percentage and the mileage would increase drastically.
Liquid gasoline quickly vaporizes at 89 degrees. I'm working on a way to capture the vapor in a pressurized tank and delivering the gas vapors directly into the cylinders, same as a hydrogen fuel cell.

edit on 27-7-2011 by intelligenceabsolute because: corrected errors



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Yeah, here's the thing... Carbs. used to vaporize fuel (which burns much more efficiently) BUT they switched to fuel injectors. Fuel injectors turn gasoline into a fine mist spray, it is not vaporized. There is a HUGE difference. So, even if this thing did what it claims. (which, I know it works for water) It won't convert into more gas milage in a car. The fuel injectors will condense the fuel back to a liquid and the effects will be void. Also, Where are you going to hold 100+ gallons of vaporized fuel. It has to be done on the fly and burned as its made.

This would only work if you got rid of the fuel injectors and remodeled the engine. And THAT is not easy.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
A stirling engine was used long before Oil was found...you only need to heat it for it to run. Any source of heat and it will run.

If you bolted a couple stirling engines onto a cars engine....it would take the HEAT from a cars engine and run....using only HEAT to put the energy back into batteries for later use.

Of course peltier modules also can take HEAT and turn it into electricity using transistors.

We waste most of our gasoline as waste HEAT.


Our current car technology is stiffled. The Government NEEDS mass amounts of crude oil being bought by you to keep shipping/air travel/food affordable.

If we built a car today that got 100mpg.......gas prices would skyrocket. Our military would get less fuel to sail ships due to costs...that's the real bottom line.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The BTU contained in a gallon of gas doesn't change regardless of the state of the fuel or the air/fuel mixture.

Maybe there will be better ways to burn the gas as well as ways to further increase efficiency in the internal combustion engine, but turning 1 gallon into the BTU output of 160 ain't it -- LOL

The cars burning vaporized fuel in the Xprize didn't make it to the final round. From what I remember, FVT, the canadian entry had mechanical failure they couldn't recover from. www.fuelvaporcar.com... They haven't update that site since 2007.

I also believe they moved away from the fuel vapor technology push. In fact they did -- here's their new site: www.futurevehicletechnologies.com... They couldn't get the efficiency out of vapor technology it appears and they moved to series hybrid (explained on the site). There was a film company called dreamfilm covering that team dreamfilm.ca... They did a documentary that ended up on discovery channel canada. Here's a piece of that on youtube. youtu.be...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Our current car technology is stiffled. The Government NEEDS mass amounts of crude oil being bought by you to keep shipping/air travel/food affordable.

If we built a car today that got 100mpg.......gas prices would skyrocket. Our military would get less fuel to sail ships due to costs...that's the real bottom line.

Sad, but true. I used to work with a guy that invented things. One of them was a simple air pressure system that completely replaced the battery. Then he hit the mother lode with a method of cheap transportation; but he never would tell me exactly how it worked.

Then he took time off work to work on it, but when he applied for a patent word got out. Some big shots offered him $10M for it and he said no. Really pissed them off, and they took him down... burned his shop to the ground; peppered him with stupid, petty lawsuits. It was all BS, and he won the lawsuits, but they dragged it out in court for years. He finally died a broken man. It made me so mad I was about ready to kill someone, but whaddayagonna do?

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

A professor at our local University of TN invented a 100mpg carburetor back in the late 70's, or maybe the 80's, not sure. He thought he was going to be famous... he was on the Art Bell show and several other programs.

And then he just disappeared...



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Converting gasoline into gaseous form as a motor fuel has been tried before. It only requires heat. This can be readily seen by the haze which emits from a gas can on a hot day. I see here several reasons why a gallon of gas would only produce only so much energy, whether in liquid or vapor form,but believe this does not apply as most of the energy thus produced is lost due to the incomplete combustion process inherent . In gaseous form the combustion would be very complete, and need not be further burnt in the exhaust system or catalytic converter.
Both the government and the oil industry have reason not to see a 100MPG fuel consumption, government for tax loss (although they could easily regain this via raising gas taxes to about three times their current rate. But the oil industry would be severely affected by the world's oil consumption dropping to a third or less of present levels.
The conversion would thus appear simply heating enough gasoline to convert it to a gas before it reaches the combustion chamber. This event should take place at or near the carburator or injector, and probably be controlled by engine vacuum. All this has been supposedly done and is apparently no myth, with spectacular results in MPG improvement, however none have been able to get such a system into production. Also consider the carbon output and heat effects on engine life of nearly 100% fuel combustion. Until a synthetic fuel becomes available to replace fossil fuels, this could extend greatly the resources we still have.





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join



 
$('#skin').click(function(){ window.location.href = "http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008463/pg1"; });