Alternative Fuel System I'm Working on

[Michael Savage]

Working on building a new fuel system for my car as a backup/secondary system in case I run out of Gas or something with averaging 2000 miles a month now.

 

Old cars without electronics can run on fuems, which makes sense since Liquid Gasloine doesn't burn the fuems burn and heat the cylinder and heads and heat the gas and turn a little into fuems and then shoots the other 70% out the exhaust to be evaporated.

 

Working on a heated metal can that air bubbles through gas and socks in Air and Fuems that connects to the Throttle body with a 2nd pipe with a Butterfly to adjust A/F ratio to what's needed. Just unplug the fuel system relay and you're ready to go. Was wondering what I might run into so I know anything I should work on it with or to expect.

 

Running a cheap one with a Gas can, pvc, air conditioner hose, and duct tape and not being sealed on a Dodge V8 5.9L worked great but lost power(from not having it setup well at all) but engine ran colder and exhaust temps went down alot. Also have tested it on a Lawn mower and it works great.

 

Done my homework on these systems and see no downsides, cuts emissions by 70-100%, reduces overall heat of the engine by burning all fuel in a second or less, prevents soot build up, and Gasloine mixing with oil, keeps engine temps cooler so gas doesn't burn up as quick either, less heat on the cylinders valves and exhaust, and ups gas mileage by who really knows on the 5.9L we drove 40-60miles with a gallon in the tank and marked where it was and when we got back it was still about level with it.

 

So questions and ideas that could help with some of the fine tuning would be appreciated, and don't compare this to HHO which needs a O2 sensor intraposer to work. This is just a way to actually make the fuel system efficient and using you full $2.50 worth of gas and not just dumping $2 out of the engine every 25-30 miles you drive.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael Savage]

Rough drawing of how it works as well, above is where I was drawing the differences of Carburetors and Fuel Injection vs this. In a sense, Carburetors and Fuel Injectors do the same thing shoot Mist out and condenses on the metals between them and the cylinder and turns back into a full Liquid from the Mist and a little evaporates on the metals and turns into the Fuems that get burnt. And the rest of the gas blows by the Piston rings and mixes with the Oil and the rest goes out the Exhaust valves and Evaporates in the Exhaust pipes. Where as this, no Liquid goes in and only the Pure Fuems go in.

 

Actually been trying to think of a way to adapt a full Gas Tank and Fuel lines and Injector rail to just inject the Fuems, and about figured out a way to do that as well, this is a long term project and isn't going to happen over night while I am going to College currently and Working, and traveling a lot.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael Savage]

As far as adapting the pre built fuel system, replace the Injectors with metal tubes grinded to fit the O-Rings, remove the Fuel Pump and Fuel filters, modify the top of the can with a check valve so gas can flow in but not out and add a air filter. Run the 2 fuel lines the same way to the top of the tank to with check valves fire can't flow back to them, also might add a catch can in between them and the tank so liquid doesn't come out and dump in the engine on inclines and such. Been thinking about this alot and been drawing all kinds of schematics in my head for this now that I've been testing them for the past year(poorly made versions) and having good results.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael Savage]

Also could adapt the Gas tank Filler tube with a Air Filter instead of modifying the gas tank, probably a Lawn Mower Filter would work good for that area.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schurkey]

You're not the first person to think of this.

 

The fact that it's not popular might give you a clue that the concept has significant problems, not the least of which is mixing air with heated gasoline has some safety drawbacks (BOOM!)

 

If you're thinking you can cut emissions by 70%, you're out of your mind. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and every other manufacturer have teams of engineers that would have built this system...if it offered any benefits like what you're hoping for. It doesn't. Your concept of combustion is deeply flawed. VERY LITTLE raw gasoline gets out the tailpipe. Look up HC emission levels for proof.

 

Here's a thought. Carry a two-gallon gas can in the trunk. When you run out, pour liquid gasoline from the little can into your gas tank, and drive up to 40 miles to the nearest gas station.

 

 

 

 

 

Might as well use your alternator to separate water into O2 and H, and then re-burn it. (another losing proposition)

Edited April 8, 2015 by Schurkey

[RobertISaar]

i would also like it noted that if anyone kills themselves or others doing this, they have been warned.

[Galaxie500XL]

Work is being done in this area...but based on the challenges that have been identified thus far, it would appear that incorporating such a system successfully is going to require significant design changes--in other words, it's unlikely that such a system would work well on a system not specifically designed for what you are proposing.

 

http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/vehicle-technologies-office-advanced-combustion-strategies

 

But, I have to agree with the other two posters. Liquid fuel isn't that great of a fire/explosion hazard. However, fuel VAPOR, which by definition means fuel and oxidizer are mixed, combined with heat, and carried to the engine, versus mixed within the engine, is a grenade just waiting to go off.

[Michael Savage]

Boom wise, is why you add in the check valve so a miss can't travel back to the tank to cause and explosion. GM and other companies arnt allowed to improve the fuel system due to that being how our government makes its money is on wasted fuel. There are several thousand of these systems actually on the road in the US and more in other countries. Popularity is low because 90% of all drivers won't work on their own vehicles and changing stuff from the factory is a no no. Also as far as a H2 O2 generator only requires 1.25v and 3Amps to run and can work but it requires a tune or electronic intraposer to tell the car or truck it's running richer so it doesn't dump gas when it detects all the extra Oxygen, but instead of using one of those I wanna improve on what's already been around 40 years there used to be a carb that heated gasoline and only allowed Vapor to go into the engine, but GM or Ford bought it back in the 70s and never saw that again. So I'm working on one for my car too see how well it works, but rite now we're working on lawn mower applications and working or way up to a S10 4.3 L then a Appling it to my Monte Carlo with the 95-03 3100

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[runt]

Boom wise, is why you add in the check valve so a miss can't travel back to the tank to cause and explosion. GM and other companies arnt allowed to improve the fuel system due to that being how our government makes its money is on wasted fuel. There are several thousand of these systems actually on the road in the US and more in other countries. Popularity is low because 90% of all drivers won't work on their own vehicles and changing stuff from the factory is a no no. Also as far as a H2 O2 generator only requires 1.25v and 3Amps to run and can work but it requires a tune or electronic intraposer to tell the car or truck it's running richer so it doesn't dump gas when it detects all the extra Oxygen, but instead of using one of those I wanna improve on what's already been around 40 years there used to be a carb that heated gasoline and only allowed Vapor to go into the engine, but GM or Ford bought it back in the 70s and never saw that again. So I'm working on one for my car too see how well it works, but rite now we're working on lawn mower applications and working or way up to a S10 4.3 L then a Appling it to my Monte Carlo with the 95-03 3100

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Our cars waste fuel because we drive them. The government isn't making any money on "lost gasoline". I think any/all of the environmental agencies would go nuts if there was all of this raw gas pouring out of the tail pipes.

[Michael Savage]

The raw gas doesn't poor out on the road(unless you're shooting Flames out like race muscle cars) the remains liquid blows past the Rings and mixes with your oil(burning it up quicker) creates a hot long burning flame in the cylinder(heating surrounding areas), the liquid that doesn't blow by goes out the Exhaust valves and is heated and burns in the Exhaust and snuffs out in your Cat then evapes the rest of the way in the hot exhaust. Run a 3100 without the exhaust pipes on it and watch the flames shoot out of the ports and liquid splatter around on the ground. Guess that liquid is just flammable water pouring out lol there's even federal documents explaining the wasted fuel and the percentage actually used in the cylinder. I'll find a link in a minute

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael Savage]

This is a link to internal combustion physics,

http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html

Which if you read it it's only using 20% of the gas input 40% generates wasted heat and the other 40% runs out the exhaust

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertISaar]

 

1/3 of your fuel does not end up going out of your exhaust.... 1/3 of the energy of the fuel injected does. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

 

if you have raw fuel coming out of your exhaust ports, you have other problems that need addressed. normal combustion actually does create water, around 12% of the total exhaust stream.

[Nas Escobar]

Appling it to my Monte Carlo with the 95-03 3100

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Actually the 3100 in your car was made from 93-99. 2000-2005 was an improved design to make it more interchangeable with the 3400.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

[Michael Savage]

My 3100 is 96 Block, 97 heads, 2000 lower manifold, 2003 upper manifold, 95 Original Exhaust Pipes. Anyways since apparently this forum has done nothing but turn in to criticism over something new that they haven't tested they don't even want to help with working on things and hate change I guess I'll update this over the comming months as its worked on to let y'all know how it actually works since I can't even get honest unbiased help on things to watch out for other than just saying it can't work. So might as well not comment if you're not gonna talk about the project and just say it can't work.

 

If you don't have anything constructive to talk about don't post, wasting readers time of sorting through the he said she said it can't work when you haven't built one and tested it. Popularity isn't about how something works it's about how little work people have to do to make something work. If you haven't built one or won't consider actually researching or thinking about how the combustion can take place in different ways other than a liquid then don't even worry about this post, I've built a few on little stuff and they work, I've tested them and seen them work, so test one of your lawn mower and watch and then say Oh it does work, it just takes tweaking the A/F ratio and on some applications you don't even have the heat the fuel, but on a car or truck you need to atleast have a heating element to keep it bare minimum 60*F so it won't super chill.

 

So if you're not willing to test or consider it working for you some how don't criticise other people's work and ideas and research before you actually try it yourself.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Galaxie500XL]

Michael, I think you've completely mischaracterized the nature of the responses you've gotten here. What you're proposing isn't actually new, and I posted a link yesterday describing research efforts being made currently to do precisely what you're proposing.

 

By all means, post whatever progress you make on your project, but at the same time, individuals cautioning you that what you're doing could potentially be dangerous is hardly criticism, but concern for your safely.

[runt]

People are going to question ideas like this. Cars on the road aren't designed to be totally wasteful. They are designed to be safe for the millions on the road each day including you. You are also making lots of statements about Ford, GM, etc. with no supporting information. You did post the one link which I'll read a bit later.

 

It'd be better to see you continue to be a member of this site rather than blow yourself up. But, hey, whatever makes you happy I guess.

[RobertISaar]

So if you're not willing to test or consider it working for you some how don't criticise other people's work and ideas and research before you actually try it yourself.

 

so until i cut my head off(via guillotine, because such fun), I can't state that removing my head would kill me? anything rooted in physics is governed by physics.

 

yes, gasoline vapor is what gets the job done in an engine. that's one of the largest reasons why moving away from carburetors has been so effective. carbs didn't do nearly as good of a job as vaporizing fuel as semi-modern injectors do, let alone what direct injection is capable of. but, you need to be able to meter fuel flow accurately, and unless you have some pressure regulated, temperature controlled, fuel filled reservoirs for gasoline to be heated into a vapor, the amount of fuel making it into the cylinders is going to vary wildly based on throttle position, engine speed, fuel temperature, fuel canister pressure and other minor factors. a good, well thought out controller may be able to manage all of this with reasonable results, but it doesn't sound like you're getting that in-depth. you would also need to keep in mind that pressurizing the fuel canister would raise the boiling point of the fuel and make it more likely to condense back into a liquid, but there isn't any other way to store a large amount of gaseous fuel without having a gigantic canister to store the amount of "ready to fire" fuel, since the constantly draining fuel mass would require constant control to keep up with the engine's fuel demand.

 

doing all of that safely and within a reasonable cost? has yet to be done, otherwise you would see it on production vehicles. the next best thing you can do? heat the gasoline after it has been injected, via running the engine at/above the designed coolant temp(within reason), insulating the heads/intakes, a hot air intake or via massive amounts of EGR, all of which have been tried with success before.

[Schurkey]

apparently this forum has done nothing but turn in to criticism over something new that they haven't tested they don't even want to help with working on things and hate change I guess I'll update this over the comming months as its worked on to let y'all know how it actually works since I can't even get honest unbiased help on things to watch out for other than just saying it can't work. So might as well not comment if you're not gonna talk about the project and just say it can't work.

 

If you don't have anything constructive to talk about don't post, wasting readers time of sorting through the he said she said it can't work when you haven't built one and tested it. Popularity isn't about how something works it's about how little work people have to do to make something work. If you haven't built one or won't consider actually researching or thinking about how the combustion can take place in different ways other than a liquid then don't even worry about this post, I've built a few on little stuff and they work, I've tested them and seen them work, so test one of your lawn mower and watch and then say Oh it does work, it just takes tweaking the A/F ratio and on some applications you don't even have the heat the fuel, but on a car or truck you need to atleast have a heating element to keep it bare minimum 60*F so it won't super chill.

 

So if you're not willing to test or consider it working for you some how don't criticise other people's work and ideas and research before you actually try it yourself.

You can't do basic internet research. You've proven you have no idea how in-cylinder combustion works. Similarly, you have no idea what comes out of a vehicle tailpipe. Have you spent ANY time looking at exhaust gas analyzers or the expected chemical composition of exhaust gas?

 

You're engaged in a hopeless quest for glory. Where legions of Industry's Best failed, where individual inventors the caliber of Smokey Yunick failed...you, an uneducated and grossly under-funded man/boy are going to succeed?

 

Hint: When Smokey tried this, he spent a zillion dollars and several years at it. He at least had enough sense to realize that the power level would plummet like a paralyzed falcon without supercharging. You'd do well to research Smokey's Hot Vapor engine.

 

http://rexresearch.com/yunick/yunick.htm

 

http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/

 

The above links should be the beginning of your research, not the end.

 

 

 

 

Michael, I think you've completely mischaracterized the nature of the responses you've gotten here.

No, not exactly. I'm happy to live up to my signature line when it comes to this, and when it comes to in-vehicle electrolysis and "Brown's Gas" induction. Invention and research by ordinary individuals has changed America. Wet-dreams are another story.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Schurkey

[Nas Escobar]

My 3100 is 96 Block, 97 heads, 2000 lower manifold, 2003 upper manifold, 95 Original Exhaust Pipes. Anyways since apparently this forum has done nothing but turn in to criticism over something new that they haven't tested they don't even want to help with working on things and hate change I guess I'll update this over the comming months as its worked on to let y'all know how it actually works since I can't even get honest unbiased help on things to watch out for other than just saying it can't work. So might as well not comment if you're not gonna talk about the project and just say it can't work.

 

If you don't have anything constructive to talk about don't post, wasting readers time of sorting through the he said she said it can't work when you haven't built one and tested it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It would have been better to clarify that in your previous post. Remember when you're posting on a general forum, if you state things like 95-03 3100, you make it seem as if you're talking about production years, however had you specified "my modified 95 3100 with parts between 95 and 2003" then it would be crystal clear.

 

It wasn't my intention to say what you're saying is wrong, more so to clarify any confusion. Remember some people here may not know much about these cars as others do. Very easy to get confused or give others wrong ideas.

[George]

Michael, after reading through this thread, I don't think people intend to be discouraging, but rather saying it has not yet been accomplished.

All I can say is I know nothing on the subject and accept that I don't have the intelligence or the ability to accomplish anything of this magnitude, however, I've done some pretty cool things over the years mostly because I didn't know it wasn't suppose to be possible like put a 345 IH v-8 in a 1962 IH Scout model 80 or build a fiberglass hood for an '82 Pontiac Trans Am, although nothing on this scale, never the less cool.

If I was told "it's not possible" I would not have tried. It can be a great motivator to those with that "I'll prove you wrong" attitude. I hope this is you.

Either you will be the recipient of a "Darwin Award" or the Nobel peace prize, I'm voting for the later.

Edited April 9, 2015 by George

[GnatGoSplat]

Nothing against what you're trying to do, Michael, but why is it when I read articles about this technology (including the links Schurkey posted), I feel like I should also be wearing a tin foil hat?

[pitzel]

Working on a heated metal can that air bubbles through gas and socks in Air and Fuems that connects to the Throttle body with a 2nd pipe with a Butterfly to adjust A/F ratio to what's needed. Just unplug the fuel system relay and you're ready to go. Was wondering what I might run into so I know anything I should work on it with or to expect.

 

For starters, just removing the fuel relay will not cause the fuel pump to be de-energized on these cars when they're running. The fuel pump's primary source of energization is through the oil pressure switch. The fuel pump relay is only used to pulse the pump on during start-up so it has fuel to fire quickly, as opposed to building enough oil pressure to energize the fuel pump.

 

So questions and ideas that could help with some of the fine tuning would be appreciated, and don't compare this to HHO which needs a O2 sensor intraposer to work. This is just a way to actually make the fuel system efficient and using you full $2.50 worth of gas and not just dumping $2 out of the engine every 25-30 miles you drive.

 

I'd like to put this as politely as possible, so basically, there's no free lunch. In terms of petrol engines, the 3.1/3100 are actually fairly efficient, and newer engines only achieve slightly better efficiency on account of more optimized computer controls, instrumentation that can allow the ECU to tune the engine closer to its timing limits based on actual operating conditions, higher gear ratio transmissions (keeping the engine spinning slower on the highway), fundamental changes to the thermodynamic cycle such as turbocharging (and a commensurate use of a smaller/more efficient block to compensate), and more efficient auxiliary loads such as power steering.

 

There's no grand conspiracy of engineers, oil companies, car companies, etc., wanting to keep fuel consumption up. Actually, any firm that could develop, economically, an engine that burned meaningfully less fuel and still met all the other design criteria (ie: affordability, reliability, etc.) would seize such opportunity to do so.

Edited April 10, 2015 by pitzel

[pitzel]

This is a link to internal combustion physics,

http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html

Which if you read it it's only using 20% of the gas input 40% generates wasted heat and the other 40% runs out the exhaust

 

Yeah certainly if you had some way of generating useful energy from this (lower-entropy) heat output in a way that could be mounted in a car, that would improve efficiency. On stationary power plants, this is often referred to as "combined cycle" or "co-generation", in that, a steam generator uses waste heat from the exhaust of an engine (usually a gas turbine motor, but can be an IC engine as well) to generate steam which can be directed to a steam turbine for extraction of useful mechanical work.

 

IIRC, BMW had an example of such implemented for cars, called "turbosteamer". Not sure what really happened to it though in the marketplace, and whether it proved to be mechanically sound or just another typical BMW maintenance nightmare. Entropy, especially in a relatively low-temperature application like a car, is, of course, the problem. As is extra weight and size in a non-stationary application.

[Garrett Powered]

yes there is a conspiracy called green cars.. crush the clunkers and send them half way around the earth, send back new GM's, until so many barrels of crude oil burn it the process that we forget how many dollars are printed to afford subsidized bio fuel running vapor burners. The centrifugal effect of all that steel traveling around the earth makes time travel possible like the movie Superman.

[redgrandprix]

i enjoy the variety of experimentation on this forum in general but my only problem with this is i don't think CAFE would be a thing if major motor companies were forced to keep making engines that "waste" fuel. otherwise as simply as i can put it... you do you