Here is a second video to clear and hopefully prove what I did could work, if done right with the right technology or better mechanics. but everyone wants to see driving so here I go...
Hi, I did this in high school auto shop in 1984. The whole class built canisters for 2 different vehicles a Ford Ranger and a Datsun B210 that belonged to the school auto shop class. It worked good. We figured at the time the Datsun was getting about 80 miles to the gallon or so and the truck eas getting about 50 or 60. The class was pretty excited along with our teachers, we were going to enter both vehicles in our local Science fair at the Ventura country fair. But the powers that be desided against it?? We we never told a reason? But now knowing what I know, it does not surprise me that the powers that be didnt want this information out? We should be getting 200 miles per gallon or more on our vehicles now for sure. Its all about the money and how much it cost to get oil out of the ground. Take care. Hawk out!!
This neither black arts or suppressed knowledge. The reason you saved fuel is 1: The smallest molecules in your gas evaporates first and takes less heat to break down so higher thermal efficiency. 2: if your doubled mileage you used half the amount of fuel per combustion which is the same as running lean. It is no secret that you can roughly double your mileage by running lean and it can be done safely with an easy foot on the throttle, but you can also do that by reprogramming your ECU. However in both cases your NOx emissions often go up, so this is a no no for car manufacturers. Remember WV did exactly that with their cheating software and where did that land them? Did you notice that the engine stalled after a while on fumes. That is because when only long molecules are left in the can, they wont evaporate as easily and what is left is more like Kerosene, so unless you intent to throw the Kerosene away the fuel is not more energetic on average by being evaporated, you are just eating your cookie first.
Tore Lund Hi. Well said. I wish that manufacturers would install a fuel air mixture control in Pick-ups? Like in lite genral aviation aircraft. I think I could save about 1/8th to 1/4th gallon depending on the octane. It would be fun to see how much you would really save. But cooling the engine and the flux of the temp may be a problem? But it would be fun. I haven't even tried looking on RU-vid for such a thing? Take care and Thanks for the reply. Hawk out!!
Cheers, If you are going to wing it it would maybe be sensible to install a temperature sensor the cylinder head, they come as a washer with a temp sensor welded to it to put under your spark plug, , but it is usually not a problem when driving with 1/3 throttle or less as you do the most of the time when cruising with the occasional 1/2 throttle for accelerating. I had a failing fuel pump some time back and I only noticed it when putting my foot down it, kind of lacked top end power and the exhaust smelled more obnoxious it stinged slightly in my nose, and my temperature shot up 10 degrees after accelerating hard. After I'd changed the pump, I checked my plugs and they were not burnt but white with ash. No damage to the engine.
Wow...I knew a Army Mechanic...in 1986 do the same thing.....I thought it was a joke.....but he proved it just like you did..... He taught me tricks about power steering, and transmissions as well....he learned it in the Army in The 70's..... Thanks again it brought back a lot of old memories... God bless you and your family Brother Daymond Chief Jones
Chief, your SCOJ website should allow people to interact with you - there was no way for me to leave a message. You need different software, I could help if you want. You need to use "Forum" software, and it's free - even Wordpress could do the job. Gimme a shout back back if you want to transform your website for the glorification of Yehoshua.
@@legallyinsane7151 ...my email address is on there .. and....a customer contact info is there. I get 1-10 inquiries a week...and as many as 50....and sometimes none.... daymond4040@yahoo.com Contact me here
Wow! This is great stuff! You should bring a line from the fuel pump to feed the vaporizer so it self-refills from the fuel tank. A guy did that on a Corolla and it worked great. Congrats man!
I don't understand why anyone would not believe it gasoline is raw fuel but if you set it on fire you will notice that the flame is separate from the wrong gasoline it is the fumes that burns. That is the science between combustion you need raw fuel are to turn it into gas which will ignite and create combustion. To the person that did not believe this go back to school or use your computer to do the research no more than downloading music and movies and texting your friend you might learn something.
The liquid (gasoline) is flammable, the gas (gas fumes) are explosive. Combustion engines use fuel, air, and spark. Inside a chamber called a cylinder, air and fuel are put in. In a fuel injected car, the fuel is sprayed in a mist like a can of air freshener. Air is also put into the cylinder to make the gas more explosive than with just nothing but fumes. The air is compressed by the piston inside the cylinder to get it ready to explode (combust) to push the piston back down. A spark like a lighter when you flick it, makes the air and fuel ignite and explode (combust) making a force that causes the piston to move back down. The piston is attached to a crankshaft which rotates when the piston moves. This motion and chemical reaction is used to deliver power to your wheels in order to move and drive the car.
It's basic chemistry, you need the proper air to fuel ratio for fuel to burn. You can have as much fuel as you want but if there is not sufficient oxygen, it won't burn. Excess air is fine but too much fuel and you will waste fuel as it won't burn. So while your statement that the fumes burn is somewhat accurate the truer statement would be to say once there is sufficient oxygen present along with the fuel it can be burned.
So you made a BONG-ORATOR, the intake air is bubbling through the gas and atomizing it similar to a float tank on a B&S. May not improve efficiency but could be useful to get home in a post SHTF world.
i was messing around making gasoline vapor but instead of engine having to draw air through the fuel(gasoline) to produce vapors i went another way and used a 12 volt compressor with a bubbling stone for aquariums in the bottom of my tank submerged in gasoline. it makes thousands of bubbles going through the gas coming out as vapors and all the engine has to do is use the vapors not make them. i need to add my second device which is a vibration to the tank to create more vapor. when i get done i will disappear without a trace or so i have been told.
I have no idea why someone would think an age old idea would not work. Great job on the back flash arrestors. It could be noted also that you do not need a fuel filter or an air filter anymore and other nice little bonus I found the longer I run mine the colder than fuel gets so a regulated fuel heater might be a really good idea for keeping the fuel at a constant temperature, but yours is under the hood so you probably don’t have much of a problem on my lawn mowers, the fuel will eventually get too cold to vaporize well and being cold it will absorb humidity from the ambient air and making it cloudy looking.
In the early 70s a man in south Texas did the same thing and got almost 60MPG. He made a professional rig and he was silenced. Never heard from again. If you look in either Popular Mechanics or Mechanics Illustrated from 1971 to 1974 has his designs .
he actually got to sell some from what i've heard from the guy that works with me. he said back then his buddy bought one for a mercedes and said he got 70 mpg.
"He was silenced"? So why didn't"t "the man" silence the magazine then? Maybe it just wasn't a good enough invention, because if it was, it would definitely be standard by now..
you need to get an aftermarket ignition system made for a carburetor and this will work even better . Your computer will not detect fuel pressure and will constantly vary the spark timing to compensate for no or lean fuel detected very cool
Many vehicles don't detect fuel pressure. The engine clearly ran well. The injectors rely on a regulated voltage and rail pressure relative to intake vacuum, so the computer can accurately guess how much fuel is used. Most vehicles don't have a fuel pressure transducer.
There's always someone who dowsn't want this information out there. It does'nt matter what those idiots say. You know you have something. Thanks for getting this out there.
That's pretty KEWL!!! Good to know to get out of a jam and home or auto parts store. I never knew that or heard of that before. That Dodge MAGNUM sounds good even running on "Fumes"👌 Thx👍
The reason it runs a little rough is because it is a fuel injected truck. ECM is looking for fuel pressure to make adjustments in timing etc but doesn't see the fuel. It's basically driving the ECM crazy lol. But yes, this works 100% positive. Just would work better without an ECU driven engine.
I knew a guy that did something similar to this in a early 2000’s Ford Focus. He plumbed the factory tank with a 3” vacuum hose. It was routed thru the cab and firewall to a electronic speed control blower. It’s a total Frankenstein build but it runs! He claims he gets 70-75 mpg.
i read through the comment section. In it i find a lot of "engineers". Some say: Too lean mixture, will kill the engine. Overheating etc. Others then say that the oil will prevent that from happening. As it will still be pumped around. Others talk about poor mileage. Yet others try to say that you can do 100 miles per gallon. Then you have the people who explain that carburetors do the same thing, or almost the same thing. And then you have people who say that this is different from carburators. I cant say who is right, because im not an "engineer". But what i dont see anyone mentioning is that he aint using his fuelpump anymore. He aint using his injectors anymore. I thought that it requires energy to have those components work.............So he is saving that bit of energy, i would think. Plus, the components themselves, they wont break down. He doesnt even need em. So, they cant break down. Im just saying. Isnt that worth something? Shouldnt that also be taken into account when trying to establish if this works or not? (works like in: If it is cheaper to run an engine like this or not)
David, sounds nice. Except, doesnt it require a pump? Doesnt it require Injectors or how you call them in a diesel (im dutch, we call em Verstuivers, but i dont know the english word for it at the moment). Seems to also require a fuelmanagement computer and all that sort of shit, right? Yet here in this video we see::::: , sparkplugs, pistons and some valves, alternator or such, and it runs. No pump. No injectors. All of it wouldnt be needed. SURE! It aint as efficient as todays cars with all the technobullshit in them. BUT, all i was saying was that people always talk about fuelefficiency, yet i never ever hear anyone talk about the FACT that this would require less components on an engine, which in the long run saves factories building such components (CO2 and all that kind of bullshit). The components wont wear down, since they aint there. Etc etc etc. They told me an airco requires energy to run. So......... eventhough the engine is running, if i turn on my ac compressor it requires extra fuel in the engine. I would think that all the components which one doesnt need with this system (in the video above) also require the engine to work a bit harder. SURE, just a tiny bit. But think about it................
I already get 100MPG from my Huffy 26" cruiser and Honda 25cc engine, no additional time, effort or money required, just change tires to Kevlar, bolt on the engine kit, fill it up, pull start, pedal a bit then stop pedaling, hit the throttle and go faster for longer. Easy peasy throttle squeezy.
shoomapado 23MPH, pretty fast for a bike, that heavy bike, my overweight self, about 1/3 the speed of cars on highways, 2/3 the speed of cars in town, and overall it's good enough for me. Probably good enough for most people, too, unless you expect to transport more than 2 passengers, dead weight, behind the bike. Then there's sort of a law of diminishing returns. You either burn more fuel or you lose speed and torque. Also, if I wanted to, I could get the 2 stroke version and get it up to about 45MPH without decreasing fuel efficiency. I just don't want to, but I own that. That's on me for not going for something more efficient. I prefer my Honda 4-stroke. Others have similar issues, I guess. The only thing stopping us from being more efficient are our personal preferences. Humans can be so damn particular.
The main drawback, as another astute commenter (or perhaps many) noted, the fuel is being evaporated in fractions based on the constituent molecule's volatility. In other words the short-chained carbon molecules (think heptanes) are evaporating first, leaving "heavier" molecules and fractions closer to the non-volatile asphalt. So your engine performance will change dramatically as the fuel changes in its molecular makeup. This is a very simple, high school chemistry fact that can't be overlooked. Yes, this idea works, but since gasoline contains numerous hydrocarbons with different partial pressures and different boiling points, your evaporating gasoline will constantly be forced to become less and less volatile as the tank gets used up. That will mean leaner and leaner air-fuel mixtures, which can lead to overheating, fuel starvation, and stalling. It may require you to dump out the heavy fuel and replenish it with new gasoline frequently. Go on a long trip with a 10 gallon tank of gasoline and I think you will see my point.
Gasoline in this application is dynamic; Rather than simple evaporation at room temperature, a vacuum is present. The pressure difference lowers the temperature required to cause evaporation. And due to the layout of the hoses, air bubbles through the gasoline causing complex circulation of the liquid and gas. Therefore, the heavier molecules get an opportunity to evaporate as the vacuum assists the process. The gasoline is constantly mixed, to permit molecule distribution and facilitate uniform evaporation
Careful buddy, I doubt those mesh screens are going to arrest a flash like you think they will. The cover on the air cleaner should be spring - loaded too, or the flash will be forced into the gas can. Good luck man.
I can see that this would work just fine, as you created created a Vacuum, which would suck any Gas fumes into the engine.. Any gas Engine Runs on fumes, not Liquid Gasoline.. Now what would be interesting, would be How miles to the Gallon, you would get without the Fuel pressure and Injectors involved, eliminating most of the raw gas, oh and Emissions, readings... Also I would improve the Sealing, on the top & Bottom of the Air filter, using High density Foam or Rubber... Good Luck...
The injectors are clean out of the equation. Fuel pressure is null, because the fuel pump, pulling fuel from the tank, has been disconnected. The theory is to pull the fumes straight into the AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM, using the vacuum created by the engine. In this theory and demonstration, emissions are practically eliminated because of how it is atomized and how quickly it burns. A naturally aspirated motor would create enough vacuum on demand, at any given RPM to draw in the mixture. It's almost self regulating at any altitude even, given that all mechanical moving parts are adjusted properly. No response required.
I can only speak on my own personal experience, based on a small engine, of course. I know, there's a big difference between small one cylinder engines and motors that are designed for on road vehicles, but the theory is still the same. My experiments prove a rather large gain in efficiency, but who am I to say that. It's just plain common sense to me to harness and divert fumes which are substantially more explosive. Getting down to the atom level, it's far more efficient. I'm not going to argue, nor do I have to prove it. Some people have it, most people don't.
This may seem off topic but hear me out this idea could be used to power your vehicle. I have an idea for a lifting force machine. Step 1: Get hollowed out cube. Step 2: Securely attach magnet to inner bottom of hollowed out cube. Step 3: Place a lever on inside bottom of cube behind the magnet thats securely attached to inside bottom of cube so that one side of the lever is pointing towards you and hanging over the magnet. Step 4: Attach a vertical bar to the top side of the part of the lever that is not hanging over magnet witch is securely attached to inner bottom of cube. Make sure the bar goes all the way up to the inner top of the cube barley touching it. Step 5: Securely attach a magnet to the side of the lever that is hanging over the magnet that is attached to the inner botttom of cube. Note: Magnets need to be facing each other with attracting poles N,S or S,N Note: The lever is going to have to be realy close to the magnet on inner bottom of cube because of how close those magnetic fields need to be to interact. But not so close that magnets can touch. The magnet on top connected to lever is pulling the magnet on inner bottom of cube towards it and since the magnet on inner bottom of cube is connected to cube, this pulling force acts as a lifting force. Now at the same time the magnet on inner bottom of cube is pulling the magnet on top downwards BUT the magnet on top is connected to the lever so any downwards pulling force is being converted mechanicaly by the lever into upwards lifting force. Now if you know anything about magnets you now that there are magnets powerfull enough to lift far more weight then just there own. So essentialy this divice is exploiting the powerfull pulling force of magnets by mechanicaly transforming its magnetic pulling force into mechanical lifting force through the clever utilization of a lever, and walla stuff can be made to fly. Imagine if the magnets in this experiment where electro magnets so the ammount of electrical current going into them determined the ammount of lifting force that it would have. Now imagine this system being used as an attachment that could be placed under or ontop of vehicles to counter the weight of the vehicle and any cargo its carying. Now imagine if this was done with powerfull permanent magnets and turned sideways and placed in an electric generator and had enough strength to pass through the magnetic fields as it propelled itself forwards with its own magnetic pulling force. -Signed AMA-
OK. the bubble type of carburetor works. So three questions. What kind of fuel economy are you getting? Does the engine show signs of overheating because it is now being run leaner? What are your NOX values?
I've driven my truck about a maximum of 5 miles using it like this, you can't drive any further than that because the gas gets really cold. However if you run an engine with no water it only takes about a minute and a half to start overheating and it never heated up anymore than usual. Also I've watched several videos on this and one guy did a dyno test in exhaust test in the exhaust was almost zero but I can't tell you the mileage you have to heat the gas and do a way better job than what I did this was just an experiment
@@SuperLeeroy69 lol no fords, i dont like replacing transmissions every 20k miles no american cars for me period, the japanese produce a far superior automobile hands down over any american junk.
Seen this before. Too bad the parts mileage is not worth it. This is a viable concept but running an improperly tuned engine for the fuel to air ratio will destroy the engine. This is running the engine "lean". That means the fire is too hot. Good way to melt the piston and scorch the bore. This can be good technology if someone designs an engine with the proper compression and timing for this concept. I could hear the knock through the video while you were driving trying to accelerate. Like I said it's a great concept, just need some properly designed aftermarket components If you hope to achieve long term longevity and proper performance.
But that lean of a mixture, at a compression ratio that won't damage the metal, also won't produce enough horsepower. There's nothing wrong with the hypothesis that the fuel/air mixtures of today's engines aren't as efficient as is currently possible technologically, except that it's wrong.
I see no merit to this comment. The only way we can really know the facts is to see a lengthy road test like Tom Ogle did. What Ever Happened to Tom Ogle in the 70s?
it would be nice to measure the fuel in a beaker, then pour it into the empty clear container. once you drive on the fumes, come back and remeasure the fuel in the container. this would also prove that you were only running on fumes instead of actually creating a vacuum and ducking fuel in through the hoses. cool video.
Liquid gasoline doesn't burn. All spark ignited engines run on vapor only. Running & running with normal air/fuel ratios is another thing. But cool video. Also note if your fuel pump or injectors/curcuit failed. You could drive home or to safety this way. As long as you have spark. Just be cautioned as gasoline vapors are extremely flammable & need to be managed so they do not fill any enclosed spaces.
There are two major misconceptions within the comments below. The first is, "won't work in cold weather." This is only true below about -50f where gasoline begins giving off vapor. The second is that he removed the wrong fuse. Incorrect again. The diagram is meant to be read exactly as he is holding it, not what is underneath when the lid is replaced. Notice the position of the two smaller fuses just right of center on the fuse box and on the diagram? Now, on running lean and zero efficiency, these are spot on. However, the guy never states to be trying to overcome either as he is just proving a point.
Had a old Buick that went 200 miles gas hand didn’t move. The only one my dad every had,he was a car dealer. Wish we had never sold that one. It can be done if the info was not stopped by big guys.
carburetors were more efficient than fuel injection , and this is why you hear stories of people who used to get phenomenal fuel mileage, because of experimental carburetors which did what this guy did, used vapor to burn in the engine, todays cars are not efficient, they burn liquid, which cannot be burned completely so you go around dumping perfectly good fuel onto the ground
Engines do not burn liquid. Nothing can burn liquid, the molecules are too close together, each molecule needs to be surrounded by air, so atomisation (in fuel injection and carburation) works, evaporation (this experiment) works. You always need some device to separate the molecules. Whether you use fuel injection, a conventional carburettor, or this makeshift carburettor, it's always gas. The early cars referred-to in other answers used evaporation. Carburettors were more efficient and injection allows more control, especially of exhaust gases.
integr8er66 the principle is the same, mixing ait with fuel in a chamber, but no Carb works mixing fumes with air, unless the fumes don’t have to travel too far and the mixture of air and fuel to engine is v direct with rubber pipes needed instead of Jets and valves etc.
I believe it. Will the pistons run hot. The fuel vapor in the injection coats the inside of the cylinder to help with cooling. I'm concerned that running on the fumes might cause the engine to run lean. (Hot)
I’m more surprised anyone doubted this was possible. As the earlier person stated you cannot burn liquid gasoline. If you do it quickly enough you can douse a match in a cup of gasoline.
To better the fuel economy the gas needs to be hot. Let the cooling system do the job. Let some of the water pass through the gas in a pipe and you are all set to go. Check the milage before and after the heating of gas.
I have read some of the patents of carburators that would get over 100 m.p.g. The common theme between these patents was that the fuel was heated creating a finer fuel mist. We know that fuel injection is more efficient than carburators partially because of the finer mist. So it makes sense that an even finer mist than fuel injection would work even better. Food for thought,, Try ultra sonic of the fuel.
Ive seen some old carb mods that heated the gas right before injection. As did tom ogle carb that got high mileage, that got scrapped on the shelf. So high heat is the key if you ask me. so Farmer what's his head, really didn't do it for me. Just saying. Did a good video though.
Lets see you go for a nice long drive , wont happen because your truck will over heat , because you will be running it way to lean, and burn your piston rings up.
@@scottp7587 yes you are right...as long as there is an oil cooler in the line, and maybe a thermostat that allows whatever style motor to run cooler than what's recomended, there still shouldn't be any problems. Problem is, people don't think things all the way through like that.
I believed it the first video, There will always be naysayers. I'm more curious about A/F ratio and egt, and how many miles will that give you in that v8 truck (318 I believe).
This reminds me of a friend who came up with what he thought was a great idea, run the alternator off the tires instead of the engine, so his truck would have free electricity. As far as I know basics physics, chemistry and conversion the bonds in molecules to useful power I learned years ago hasn't changed much. There are many fuels and many fuel delivery systems, some are more "efficient" than others but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. What it costs to get a mile down the road for the life of the vehicle is the bottom line. What fuel does the farmer have in his tractor? The one he uses to cultivate all that corn that makes that damn crap ethanol mixture we have to use in our cars? Diesel
You'd be putting more wear and friction on your tires and it'd gain you no additional power. You'd just be slowing the car's roll and replacing tires faster to pull some energy back that you already put in. It's like you gave a friend a dollar and 2 seconds later he gave it back. No gain, just more work for the same or similar end result. It works out okay with gas engines running alternators because those have other things to supply power to, It's better to replace belts and tires at about the same rate with lots of use and less maintenance in the time between than it would be to replace tires about twice as often. Either way, it's not like most people use all the HP from the engines when they drive, so might as well use those over-powered engines for something else, right? Like a high wattage sound system, power seat, AC, heater, higher powered lights, horn or inverter? Either way works, just 1 way works better for the average consumer. Your friend's way would result in no added efficiency unless you coast down hills and push the car up hills with solar power, a sail or something. Cheat the system with technicalities LOL. Momentum takes energy to build up. If you want to lose your momentum and use more power to build it back up to overcome the resistance of the alternator, sure, that'd be fancy, but it wouldn't do you any good. A fly wheel does not turn an engine into a perpetual motion machine or anything similar. It only stabilizes the tires' RPM between engine revolutions, but at further cost of power and efficiency. This is why 2 stroke engines seem smaller but more powerful and efficient than 4 stroke engines. There is less to power, fewer parts (like valves, fly wheels, computers or injectors) to add resistance that'd need to be overcome in 2 stroke engines. This is why 2-cycle engines usually don't have fly-wheels. There's just no need. Fly-wheels are more for comfort than efficiency, much like the "spread spectrum" feature of a computer processor. It robs the top end power to smooth out felt performance. Without a fly-wheel, I'd imagine a 4-stroke engine would feel jerky all the time and shake the frame broken, maybe give a grown driver shaken baby syndrome, too. So they fix flaws in their design by adding more flaws in. In 2 stroke engines, vibration is manageable, because so little time has passed between cycles we can barely perceive it. Riding a 2-stroke engine with no fly-wheel feels like a buzz. Riding a 4 stroke engine with no fly wheel feels like a fast mechanical bull. If anything, I think automotive tech has taken some steps backward, but maybe for different reasons than you believe? I do like 4-stroke engines, though, but only because Honda makes a good, cheap 1 I can put on my bike, plus it's only slightly less efficient than the less reliable Chinese 2 stroke engine I could've put on there for about a hundred dollars less. Everyone has a preference, and I respect that. Let's be honest about this stuff though.
Alt running off tires? Very inefficient as it takes power to turn the tires and now will need more power for alt. You loose power just by going through the transmission and more loss from differential or cv joints. He would be better off putting a fan blade on alt. and place it in front of car as no increase of drag on car.
Mac Guy this is very interesting needless to say. Question, do you drive the truck with this setup daily? If so what kinda milage you getting? If no then why not if it works so good and is running on such minimums of fuel? Very intrigued by this but there's gotta be down sides somewhere if you know down sides to this please list thanks love content you should make other videos with similar content.
+J D (MISTER TEE) Fusebox cover is redundant. with the relay unplugged and the engine running, if you plug the relay back in the electrical influx will burn out the relay instantly. Like I said, redundant and wouldn't make a shred of difference.
It's still running on atomized fuel, not fuel vapor. Atomizing occurs due to high velocity air being drawn through the vent tubes, then up through the gas. The gas is highly agitated by the passage of the air and becomes atomized. the only place I can see where evaporation can occur is where the atomized fuel encounters the filter. The filter may be able to hold up the passage of the microscopic fuel droplets so the air passing through can speed up the evaporation process creating a fuel vapor. However, what all of you are missing out on is that whether this method, a conventional carburetor, or fuel injection is used to introduce the fuel, it is vaporized by the heat in the cylinder during the compression stroke. Then during the ignition phase the fuel VAPOR is burned.
I have no doubts it works as you say, what i would like to see is the fuel economy. Personally, i think it would be about the same, so a pointless exercise, but could be wrong, so try it and let us know.
Tee off of the exhaust and Route it to one of the intake hoses on the gas can, that way you can get a second chance at the unburned fuel from the exhaust, plus the air would be heated and cause the gas to vaporize better
Great vid. Yes, it will work(this is youtube you can literally fake anything, but the idea is sound), but it's not stable. You end up with DRASTICALLY different torque due to firing differently, either too lean or too rich at times. One of the advantages of controlling the fuel is that you get pretty close to STABLE input, which allows for calculation on wear and tear. You know that sound your truck makes when it's struggling cuz you're out of gas, The engine all rocking back and fourth cuz some cylinders are firing while other aren't? That's BAD for your engine. Cuts it's life down so much. cheaper in the long run to keep using your fuel pump and not have to replace your engine every year or so. But seriously, nice job, but if you REALLY want to make it stable, put it in a system where you have a condenser (may take 2 canisters of gas to keep it consistent), use the condensers to regulate the oxygen to fuel mixture, then use that to push in, or be pulled, into your air intake.
You need to check out Project Farm channel. He did this experiment also and proved it worked.. but also proved it provided no gain. The only thing you are going to accomplish is destroying your engine. If its not designed to burn lean it will cause issues. I am not saying you can't get better millage running lean, just if you don't do other things like adjust timing, regulate air fuel ratio, etc. You will damage your engine. Also if you did accomplish redesigning your engine to run lean, it will be with significantly less power. You can try this experiment. . Which may work fine for you, but it was not what the vehicle was originally designed for. There is always trade offs. Load your truck with a-lot of weight. And do a 0-60mph test. Then with the same weight do a 0-60mph test on fumes. See what results you get.
Understand all that but I think the technology is out there that we can run on fumes while we're just cruising down the road let the computer adjust for that or it could spray the raw gas until a cylinder is when we need to power I think there's a way to do it. Some of it would be just to heat the gas at about 200° right before it's sprayed in the cylinder so there's no vapor lock. But I'm not an engineer or anything like that just a backyard guy just doing experiments.
Mac Guy I absolutely believe there is technology being held back that would give better milage. They are only going to do what a. Makes money and b. Required by law.
I did that when me car was out of juice and got it grafting and have been thinking of a better way to be safe! Plus I couldn't shut the bonnet for the can😉👍
Hate to keep on posting on this but it excites me. tried running a hose from a barbecue propane tank to breather but didn't have a regulator on it except the tank valve itself. Only opened it a bit because was afraid to...Lola but noticed a bit more rpm. Wonder if this experimenter could try racing gasoline or even a nitro-gas mix. Course have read the higher the octane, the more compression is needed, to make it explode which is the force need to shoot the piston down.
I don't know if the higher octane I'll make a difference like you said or anything like that. But be careful I like experimenting with stuff to my wife's always afraid I'm going to blow myself up
higher compression is NOT necessary for higher octane fuel. Timing has to be advanced for higher octane fuel so it has the time to burn fully. If you use high octane fuel in an engine designed for lower octane fuel, you will carbon up the engine because it burns slower, and when the unburned fuel cools prematurely, it deposits on the inside of the head and valves, making little spires of carbon which pre-ignite the next cycles charge of fuel/air mixture. There is so much misinformation on this because people just don't educate themselves.
Yeah lots of wrong information out there. For instance, it is advancing timing to increase power that requires high octane fuel, not vice versa...knock sensors are used just for that very reason, they help adjust timing to get more power depending on what octane rating the consumer filled the tank with. Low octane, knocks sooner, less timing, less power...
how fast can the truck go?...have you figured that out yet?....how many miles did you get out of that little bit of gas you put in there?...just wondering & curious! ty for the video
If you put a lot of oil free steel wool in to the petrol container the petrol will stop rust not that it would matter air filter would stop it but then it's spill free without the lid on you could probably kick it around the yard without spillage. The steel wool act's like sheep's wool stop's sloping around.
Harold Pogue did the same thing in the 1930's but heated it up with exhaust to further create more evaporation and made World news by getting over 150 mpg. He was harassed by the government and robbed numerous times of his equipment. Another guy did the same thing with a lawn mower motor and was shot in the face when he answered the door at home.
also PAUL PANTONE. made an engine that runs on anything! water coffee beer you name it. because he wouldn't sell out to the government they ridiculed him locked him up saying his engine was impossible and he must be out of his mind. read up on him. Paul Pantone. GEET engine g.e.e.t
Watch the "protect farm" channel. He did a great experiment like this with a lawnmower engine. It does not save gas but you can run an engine like this just fine.
My dad has this in a small country town as a young mechanic in a workshop they set this up the local copper heard about it rocked up at the mech wk shop my dad worked at and asked to see it they ran it up for him. Two days later the cop 👮♂️ came back with a Fire boss & road inspector gov boss from the city & said it was dangerous an not roadworthy was also a fire hazard & he was told to remove it whilst they watched & never do it again or he wld have his car impounded for good and wld face jail. Back then he was only 22 & not much money so he has never 55 years on done it again
Well it's a shame you could hook it back up and still do experiments without telling anybody about it but understand why he didn't . Thank you for the story in the comment
I was talking to a guy about this and he said it would work but it wouldn't have any power... is this true our not? Also, thanks for showing that your vehicle had fuel injectors, it's the only reason I haven't tried it myself, I thought it had to be carborated!
the last 50 years we gone backwards in motor technology. the few times the public has even heard of anything good the company just disapears in the wind.
Is it possible to run an engine off things in the air? Could we also take something bad out of the air using an engine and replace it with something clean?
I clearly saw a carb when you took the cover off the air cleaner. So this car has fuel injection, carburetion, and your alternate system? Wow, that's crazy. The transformer of fuel systems! It was pretty cool though.
Ignore the idiots who don’t believe you. In my country that’s what we do. At least with older motors who have a carb. Fuel in my country converted to usd is $6.00. We use the fumes and it last months. So I believe you I do that here in the USA haven’t payed for a full tank or anything of the sort in ages.
while this would work ok at a fixed engine speed there's no provision for a/f mixture. this could be disastrous should detonation set in because of an overly lean condition. to be sure i would NOT recommend this on an engine with cats. this type of setup....not recommended for longevity. for a stationary engine though this just might be a viable process for investigation.
Uses the same amount of gas as running it through regular system. The evaporates about the same rate as if was injecting it. It does work the way you have it but you'll get about the same milage from a gallon of gas. The draw back to it is your not injecting fuel to help wash the values with fuel. Volkswagen is facing the same issue with direct injection. It's the main reason Ford has went away from direct injection. In about 70,000 miles you'll be having to remove intake or possibly the heads because your car will start running like crap due to build up on the values. Causes hard starts misfires and milage drops due to the build up. Again it's more of a dry fuel because it's vaper and will lead more more wear on parts also because the wet fuel is somewhat of a lubricate
This system is not the way at all. I never claimed that. Just fumes isn't enough. You have to add heat. The Pouge carb heated the fumes before intake and got great mileage. This is just an experiment.
During my high school days, we had a demonstration about gasoline. He brought a gallon sized container that had a spark plug in it. He then shot in one quiet of gasoline and hit the spark. Big Bang! Then he out in two shots and asked what would happen. Most thought bigger boom. Ball it did was burn the fuel but would not explode. He tried a half squirt, and it would not do anything. The point being made as there is a limit to how lean you can make the fuel air mixture, and still get it to ignight. No matter how good a carb or injector, the fuel air mixture has its limits, and you cannot exceed those limits. The second part if the equation, is it takes a certain amount of power to move a vehicle down the road at a given speed. You can't change the laws Of physics. All this guy has done is duplicate what s already known. Engine run off vaporized fuel, not liquid fuel. He us just sucking the vapors. One of the first motorcycles pumped fuel into a bowl, heated the bowl by putting a flame under it, and sucked the vapors into the intake. No carb. Unfortunately that raw fuel, open flame, and bad roads, resulted in many fires.
This is just an experiment. Nothing to be used as a permanent thing. However the heat of the engine is not affecting the gas because after running it for a couple miles the gas gets really cold and stops making fumes anyways. So one of my next project is to put it in a stainless steel can with a heater coil inside, using the antifreeze that gets hot anyways, see if it'll run longer
Cool I did make a bubbler only drawback is you only use. The light fractions of the fuel to use all the fuel you would need to heat the air going in. To the air cleaner.the mode t had a simaler carborator/gasifyer because of the crudeness of the fuel another youtuber ran sweet light crude in a gas test engine showing that a gas engine would still run on the crudest distillation.
Wont make vapor in the cold for sure. But if set up right like using exhaust heat, running on vapors would work. But definitely not like this. This is just an experiment
The throttle plate still moves with the gas pedal. When it opens, the vacuum from the engine sucks harder on the can, drawing more fuel vapor and air into the engine.
