Tweet
Originally posted by RAMSET
View Post
This is the carb idea:
Hello.
Based of what I know on thermal depolymerisation of hydrocarbon chains, I believe I know now how to build a 200 miles per gallon fuel system. In my experience with hho, ioonizers and plasma plugs, I am certain now, that they do not add extra energy in the engine, they just help to use the fuel to its full potential, just like catalysts. Gasoline and diesel have much more power in them than a typical engine uses and much of the fuel is just wasted. I am now convinced that it should be fairly easy to get the most out of hydrocarbon fuels reaching mileages up to 200 miles per gallon. In my country it is popular to convert car engines to run on propane or butane, because it is a bit cheaper than liquid fuels. I have some friends who did that and they also tried hho, on their engines, but none of the gas systems showed any gain, why? We will come to that. Also we are the closest EU country to Russia so we have experience with Russian and European fuels. Russian standards are way lower than those of EU. Most of the people who have tried both, report a better mileage with EU fuels than when Russian fuels are used. For example, my friend got 100km per 7 liters of EU fuel, and he needed 8 liters of Russian fuel to get the same distance. This is important.
This shows that although both fuels are hydrocarbon based, there is a major difference between them and the difference is the volume of light fractions in the fuel. The EU fuel has more of them per volume than the Russian fuel. But nevertheless even EU fuel is not so good considering how much mileage you get and how much you could get if you used it fully. So now lets move on. What are hydrocarbon chains? Most of you already know that. If you have very long chains, then you get polymers, like polyethylene and polypropylene, chop those chains shorter and you will get oils, tars, waxes. Chop those chains smaller, you will get diesel, chop the diesel hydrocarbon chains and you will get gasoline. Chop those chains even smaller and you will get propane and butane. This can easily be done with heat, like what we do on the "fuel from waste plastics" thread. So if the modern fuels have much long hydrocarbon chains in it, it makes sense to chop them smaller, preferably to the propane and butane range as that is a gas and not liquid and would not need to be turned into vapor or mist when mixed with air as that process is not the most efficient. If you have fuel gas, you will get the best possible gas/air mixture quality and get most of the fuel out. This is why no gains are seen when hho is used on propane/butane fueled cars. The gas systems on cars are rather cheap and easy to install, but the major disadvantage is that you need pressure vessels to store the propane and butane, they have limited volume and take up a lot of space. So you get less miles per refill. If we used a system that uses liquid hydrocarbons and crack them into propane and butane on the fly, we would get most of the fuel out and store way more of the fuel in the tank in liquid form, so you could get some 3-5 times further with one full tank. The cracking process just needs heat and there is more than enough heat produced in the engine, it is just a matter of delivering it where it is needed. Just warming the fuel won't work well, you need to heat it to the thermal cracking point. I believe this is how the Pogue carburetor works. I would propose the following design, take a metal container with fuel, heat it up to the cracking temperature, let the vapors through some long copper pipe coils in a cone shape or any other shape that would allow the cooled and condensed fuel to flow back into the heat chamber. The output from the condenser coils would that go through a small compressor and into a storage buffer tank. The pressurized gas would then be delivered to the engine intake.
Such a system should be able to run on all sorts of different fuels, liquid and even solid, like plastics. As long as there are hydrocarbons in there. It could run on waste oil, tars, ever animal fats.
Till recent I did not know about thermal cracking and thermal depolymerisation and I thought that only heating the fuel to some 200 degrees would be enough. No wonder that when I tried that, the vapors turned back into liquid very fast when cooled - the temperature was way too low.
What do you think about this?
Based of what I know on thermal depolymerisation of hydrocarbon chains, I believe I know now how to build a 200 miles per gallon fuel system. In my experience with hho, ioonizers and plasma plugs, I am certain now, that they do not add extra energy in the engine, they just help to use the fuel to its full potential, just like catalysts. Gasoline and diesel have much more power in them than a typical engine uses and much of the fuel is just wasted. I am now convinced that it should be fairly easy to get the most out of hydrocarbon fuels reaching mileages up to 200 miles per gallon. In my country it is popular to convert car engines to run on propane or butane, because it is a bit cheaper than liquid fuels. I have some friends who did that and they also tried hho, on their engines, but none of the gas systems showed any gain, why? We will come to that. Also we are the closest EU country to Russia so we have experience with Russian and European fuels. Russian standards are way lower than those of EU. Most of the people who have tried both, report a better mileage with EU fuels than when Russian fuels are used. For example, my friend got 100km per 7 liters of EU fuel, and he needed 8 liters of Russian fuel to get the same distance. This is important.
This shows that although both fuels are hydrocarbon based, there is a major difference between them and the difference is the volume of light fractions in the fuel. The EU fuel has more of them per volume than the Russian fuel. But nevertheless even EU fuel is not so good considering how much mileage you get and how much you could get if you used it fully. So now lets move on. What are hydrocarbon chains? Most of you already know that. If you have very long chains, then you get polymers, like polyethylene and polypropylene, chop those chains shorter and you will get oils, tars, waxes. Chop those chains smaller, you will get diesel, chop the diesel hydrocarbon chains and you will get gasoline. Chop those chains even smaller and you will get propane and butane. This can easily be done with heat, like what we do on the "fuel from waste plastics" thread. So if the modern fuels have much long hydrocarbon chains in it, it makes sense to chop them smaller, preferably to the propane and butane range as that is a gas and not liquid and would not need to be turned into vapor or mist when mixed with air as that process is not the most efficient. If you have fuel gas, you will get the best possible gas/air mixture quality and get most of the fuel out. This is why no gains are seen when hho is used on propane/butane fueled cars. The gas systems on cars are rather cheap and easy to install, but the major disadvantage is that you need pressure vessels to store the propane and butane, they have limited volume and take up a lot of space. So you get less miles per refill. If we used a system that uses liquid hydrocarbons and crack them into propane and butane on the fly, we would get most of the fuel out and store way more of the fuel in the tank in liquid form, so you could get some 3-5 times further with one full tank. The cracking process just needs heat and there is more than enough heat produced in the engine, it is just a matter of delivering it where it is needed. Just warming the fuel won't work well, you need to heat it to the thermal cracking point. I believe this is how the Pogue carburetor works. I would propose the following design, take a metal container with fuel, heat it up to the cracking temperature, let the vapors through some long copper pipe coils in a cone shape or any other shape that would allow the cooled and condensed fuel to flow back into the heat chamber. The output from the condenser coils would that go through a small compressor and into a storage buffer tank. The pressurized gas would then be delivered to the engine intake.
Such a system should be able to run on all sorts of different fuels, liquid and even solid, like plastics. As long as there are hydrocarbons in there. It could run on waste oil, tars, ever animal fats.
Till recent I did not know about thermal cracking and thermal depolymerisation and I thought that only heating the fuel to some 200 degrees would be enough. No wonder that when I tried that, the vapors turned back into liquid very fast when cooled - the temperature was way too low.
What do you think about this?
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...designs-2.html
I found out that a person I know already has tried it and he reports that yes - it is possible to turn all the hydrocarbons to gasses like methane, propane, butane and hydrogen and to run an engine on it. You just need high enough temperatures, around 700 degree celsius.
And the only turbine I have played with was a small Tesla turbine
Comment