Due to the inherent inefficiencies in the gasoline-powered engine all the elements add to reduce the overall efficiency (incorrect fuel/air mixture, waste heat, friction, etc), problem is a moderate increase in efficiency in one of them (in this case the emission system) will only slightly increase the efficiency of the vehicle overall. The thing you need to remember is that the energy conversion of gasoline to mechanical movement has a naturally poor efficiency with a maximum upper limit efficiency only slightly higher than what we achieve now. Still, every bit helps.

As for the model T Ford, it was a lot lighter and slower than todays vehicles which certainly helped get that efficiency up (heck the electric vehicles of the time were run on nothing more than banks of carbon Zinc D-cell (ish) batterys).

Very nice points and I agree about the Model t. But 18% of the fuel this is not acceptable. As far as what we can achieve now with this inefficient motor is , about 100 mile to the gallon. 3/4 ton pickup. and maybe more with a different motor that is really made to run gasoline. I need to find an electronics enginer that knows these systems. And the energy conversion of gasoline is at the least 4 time greater than what we are presently getting. It is not the engine that is the problem really, It is the fuel delivery system.

You've got a better chance of hitting it big with the lottery. Seriously - don't you think other people have thought of this? Jack-of-All-Trades gave a very cogent answer and you disregarded what he had to say (except for the minor point of the Model T). How much have you studied this topic and associated? Have you ever taken a course in thermodynamics?

Just wondering where you're coming from.

BTW, you need work on your grammar and punctuation.

Mike

No I did not disregard what He said , Actually he said almost what I said[[ The inherent ineffeincy of the industrial engine]] do I need to repeat that?? I just don't agree that it can't be inproved greatly. Andy from germany made a comment that only futhers the cause. IF there were anyone with a positive attitude on increase of fuel use, it would be useful. 25-30 percent fuel use is far fetched. 97 % way of the board. Just the fact that they put a catalytic converter on a car should tell you something. It is not there to do anything but to try to burn up wasted fuel. In 1973 I had a Ford LTD a boat that got 24 miles to the gallon. In 1998 I bought a 68 chevrolet that got 20. I have owned numerous 1950 up pickups that got 20 MPG. I also bought a 1991 Ninety eight regency with a 5.7 diesel that produced 40 miles to the gallon. So were is all this Increase that you guys are talking about?? The only cars that even come close are the very small autos 25% fuel effecient. Lets think about the fuel delivery system, It injects or spays fuel. The fuel that is not burned 82% is exssecive but cools the pistons and moves on to the converter. This fuel is injected. Lets look at a [[vapor]] system inhanced with water vapor. what would we have?

Dear Gibsonrockin247. The engine design itself is inefficient. Reciprocating parts are not efficient. A rotary design is. Not the Wankel. It has been tweaked to within an inch of its life to merely operate.

The increase is hype and bluster. The only increase is to the energy brokers wallets. I am a mechanical engineer and a chemist. The most efficient current design reciprocating engine is 27% at no load.

The engine design I am in the process of patenting is more in the area of 89%.

Dragon

SO SO SO I found the Guy that has created the new motor .Prove it

Dear Gibsonrockin247, I did not say that I created it, just refined and perfected it. Nikola Tesla created the prototype in 1911. And if Fortunata smiles on me and the oil brokers don't have me killed you will see it.

Dragon

I hope you pulled it off, I've tinkered with the idea for years.

Good luck on it all.

Brad

I read your comments and I wish you nothing but the best in your endeavors. I ordered one of the fuel cells, I don't have a clue if it works but I'm going to keep a positive attitude until I see for myself. It's amazing how many naysayers there are, too much energy wasted saying (it cant' be done.) How is your project coming along, I hope it works out for you. BillyD

I'm not quite sure where you're getting this 18% conversion figure. Standard gasoline engines are approximately 25 to 30% efficient. The rest of the energy is lost as heat largely dissipated out the tailpipe and the radiator. The automobile engineers have made remarkable progress in the last 38 years since my avatar was produced. If you pull up some back issues of car magazines you'll find performance and fuel economy dropped dramatically in the early 70s due to emission laws. Currently automobile engines are commonly producing close to 1 hp per cubic inch, which matches the horsepower to cubic inch ratios of the 60s muscle cars, with lower emissions and better fuel economy. This is remarkable considering emission considerations have a negative impact on both economy and performance. The trick in increasing fuel economy is to keep as much heat as possible in the cylinders as long as possible. Ceramic blocks,fast burn combustion chambers (to allow an increase in compression ratios) shutting cylinders off when not needed are currently being used ,or are on the drawing board. I may be wrong but I cannot see the fuel delivery system having anything to do with fuel economy. As far as a three-quarter ton pickup getting 100 miles to the gallon, if I baby my Hemi powered Dodge ram I can approach 20 miles to the gallon on the freeway. Taking 25% efficiency as the starting point the best I can possibly see would be 80 miles to the gallon at 100% efficiency, however I may be missing something here so if you can explain how the fuel delivery system can increase that figure, all ears.

Correcting a mistake I made, obviously the fuel delivery system has an effect on fuel economy, it has already been pointed out that there is very little left to improve on modern fuel injection systems

Plus the fuel used during the model T days is a lot different.

Plus the fuel used during the model T days is a lot different

So was the compression and weight of the parts. The issue is the whole system and industries reluctance to change. Retooling cost big. Between the unions and the stock holders vieing for control the consumer looses.

The fuel has inherent issues. sulfur, waxes, lubricity, emissions, cost vs. compression ratio.

Plus the fuel used during the model T days is a lot different Very true todays gas is a Napthene with additives to improve it. Originally gas was a viscosity driven and combustion driven commodity. Things like sulfur and carbon were ignored.

Even if you overcome any of these issues you will find change hard to enact.

Prove your assertions and build a company to exploit it.

Brad

Yes it is. the fuel we run today is a long chain fuel which was changed in about 1979 so it wouldn't burn. this is to stop people from making vapor fuel systems. the tempature has to be around 450 F to get it to vaporize. That is you goverment at work with there buddys the oil conpanies. But don't exclude the automakers they are working with them. THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS SIGHT, WHY ? YOU PEOPLE WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ANYONE IF THEY HAD A REAL 100% VIABLE NO EMISSIONS CAR ANYWAY. YOU BEEN IN COLLEGE SO LONG THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO DO ANYTHING. YOU HAVE SO MANY NUMBERS ROLLING AROUND YOUR HEAD, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT, THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU ALREADY GOT IT FIGURED OUT . YOUR ALREADY GETTING 99% FUEL EFFIENCY ON YOU CAR ANYWAY. SO GO BURN IT UP.

YOUR ALREADY GETTING 99% FUEL EFFIENCY ON YOU CAR ANYWAY. SO GO BURN IT UP.

We may have spent too much time in college, but you have obviously not spent enough, as your comprehension of the English language is obviously wanting.

No one anywhere on this post has claimed to get 99% fuel efficiency, ever.

What they said (correctly) is than 99% of the fuel being delivered to the cylinder is burnt IN the cylinder.

If you equate that to 99% efficiency, then you need to go back to the books and look up some definitions.

While there, you may want to check on the second law of thermodynamics, which, to my admittedly limited knowledge (B.Eng honours, Materials Science and Engineering) has yet to be repealed!

Given your arrogance and abrasive demeanor, I will not miss you. However, I wouldn't want you to leave without any benefit of having been here. In another post to you in the 60 mpg Hummer thread, I provided several links which range from a simple explanation from the university of Virginia, through a hot rodder's explanation, to a computer model from Harvard. All support the contention (widely held by virtually everyone with a general understanding of engine technology) that essentially all the fuel introduced into the cylinder is burned in the cylinder. This is not theory or some "notion". It is simple fact.

In today's engines, one can set the system for lambda of greater than 1, meaning that not only is all the fuel burned in the cylinder, but also that there is oxygen left over to burn even more fuel (if it were there). There are several reasons for not setting lambda higher than 1, but the simplest is that the catalytic converter needs a tiny amount of fuel to work. The cat is not there simply to burn unburned HC. That would be easily and more cheaply handled by air injection.

Good luck with your endeavours elsewhere.

I just came across this comment and I wish you the best. I'm looking into the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell. I don't know a thing about engineering, I'm just a regular guy. I ordered one of these fuel cells and I don't have a clue if I'm being scammed but I'm keeping a positive attitude until I see for myself. It's amazing how many naysayers there are and how vicious some of them can be, it's scary. Progress is made by dreamers and doers, not naysayers. Billyd P.S. Whatever you do I wish you the best!

HI Dan,

I've not seen you here before, but welcome to CR4! You have put your thoughts on this subject in a logical and understandable way without being demeaning or offensive to the opposite view. This is (I believe) most desirable in the debate process. There will always be those with who's views we can become quite agitated about. The best road at that point is one of restraint, exhibited by self-control - not backing down, mind you, just being honorable in our replies.

OK - Enough philosophy!

I'm giving you a point for "good answer"

Mike

Thanks Mike,

I wish I could say I've been this tactful since getting here. This (HAFC) has been somewhat of a touchy subject for me and I some of my posts while trying to play nice almost turned to hate mail by the end. Still working on it. Practice not perfection...

Dan

Dan, I have ben following some of your posts on here, and it would seem that you are very matter-of-fact about the HHO producers. I saw the youtube video you linked of the guys switching their mileagemeter back and forth with a hydroxy burner, (or if you will a homemade hydro-assist fuel cell) and the difference was pretty astounding. (15MPG up to 25-30MPG)

Have you completed any testing of your own for this? It would seem that you are interested in knowing the truth of the matter, and several of your posts referenced this, bit I haven't seen any results. I am considering buying some kind of HHO device for my vehicle, but I wanted to know if you trusted any of the sites selling them, or if you had made one yourself. You are located in Lemoore, I am in Fresno. If you have a car with one installed, or know anyone who has, and have tested it, I would like to hear back from you and come take a look at it. It would be really nice to get a REAL RESULT and a final answer on the feasability of installing a hydroxy burner in a car. (Also where to get it, and who could properly install it)

Just in case I can't get back to this thread, my email is jasonautnormal@juno.com. I look forward toa response.

Jason Guenther

One of the reasons Europe (and Japan) use so much more diesel than gasoline is because diesel is subsidized in both places so the price is much lower! The added expense of a diesel engine (or a hybrid system in the case of the Prius) is about $4000US. That runs to about 1333 gallons of gas at $3 per gallon (which is a lot less than in Europe because, believe it or not, gasoline is taxed at a much higher rate in Europe than in the US).

I don't have the rest of the statistics to hand, but a rough calculation of 20mpg for the "average" US vehicle versus 40mpg for your diesel is another 26,000 miles, or about two years worth of driving for the average American (that's considered 12kmiles per year by my insurance company).

For most people the upfront costs are noticable while the running costs over time kind of merge into the noise of everyday life. At least that's my observation.

Why don't people convert to LPG gas? The expense plus the issue of finding a filling station. People are used to pulling in to a gas station, LPG stations are used for 20# tanks for outdoor BBQs. They aren't set up for filling cars.

I run synthetic oil in our vehicles (heck, the VW demands it) but again, for most people it's the up front expense, which is roughly double. Plus, until just recently, most manufacturers insisted on a 3kmile oil change if using synthetic or not. If you don't follow the 3kmile change cycle then the warranty is void. Since most engine warranties are at least 36 months or 36,000 miles that becomes an issue.

So why do Americans love big cars? I don't know for sure, but with all the rotten drivers it is a lot safer to be in a tank. There's also that Texan thing that bigger is better. And, of course, there's no substitute for horsepower. That's an American colloquialism. Sort of like "der Weg ist das Ziel."