It turns out that it's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg

I did a search on this but nothing came up so this is probably the first thread on this subject here.


Here's all the info I could find on the subject.

Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58IkmPK6ikc

https://www.google.es/webhp?sourcei...v=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+gas+
https://www.google.es/webhp?sourcei...UTF-8#q=cars+running+on+vaporized+gas+youtube

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/gasolinevapor.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------
RUNNING ON VAPOR
By Bruce Meland,
Editor and Publisher of Electrifying Times

It is an often a misconception that most vehicles burn gasoline vapors in their internal combustion engines. The fact of the matter is, gasoline powered vehicles burn finely divided particles or droplets that are sprayed from the carburetor or fuel injectors, into the engine cylinders.

This is a very wasteful process of converting gasoline or diesel to energy. Maybe 20-30 % efficiency at most. It has been known and demonstrated for 60 or more years that burning gasoline vapors will give easily 5 times the mpg and near zero emissions. Actually if the vapors are heated to the necessary temperature of 450 degrees F, the gasoline vapors are actually fractionalized by catalytic cracking and converted to smaller light molecular hydrocarbons, methane and methanol. In my travels around the world I have been in contact with some very informed inventors, relatives or associates of inventors who have known of many high mileage low emission vapor carburetors. I am sure many of you have heard of the Pogue, Covey, and Fish high mileage carburetors.
-------------------------------------------

http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/09/200-mpg-pogue-carburetor/
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
Updated on Monday, May 24, 2010 in Technical Innovations
the 200-mpg carburetor
Pogue Carburetor
Don Garlits, a drag racing legend, poses Aug. 2, 2002, with a 125-miles-per-gallon Pogue Carburetor at Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing, Ocala, Florida.”
photo by Bruce Ackerman, Star Banner, 2002
In Dec. 12, 1936 Canadian Automotive Magazine states that the standard carburetor gets about 25 mpg at only 9% efficiency. Therefore the Pogue carburetor is 72% efficient overall at 200 mpg.
“A carburetor that would allow a car to travel 200 miles on a gallon of gas caused oil stocks to crash when it was announced by its Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue in the 1930s. But the carburetor was never produced in enough volume, and mysteriously, Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry. Ever since, suspicion has lingered that oil companies colluded to bury Pogue’s invention.”
--------------------------------------

http://www.blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_vapo.html
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
There is a website and a CD that have 604 carburetor patents that have been assigned to various companies and never developed. There were 53 inventors who wouldn't sell out. Each of them had fatal "accidents" two to three weeks after refusing to sell their patent(s). I knew four of these inventors personally. The website is http://www.fuelvapors.com/.
--------------------------------------

https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Pogue,+Covey,+and+Fish+high+mileage+carburetors


The theory is that oil companies are blocking the use of this technology because they'll lose a lot of money if it's used. These two videos explain that.

the truth about gas and vapor part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqKEQLBg6a8

the truth about gas and vapor part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDMDCT67xBM


If this turns out to be true, the word should be spread far and wide.

 

Were it true, it would have been.

 

unless there is a fire hazard to heating gas to 450 degrees F

we could all have nuclear powered batteries like the space rover Curiosity... but I would imagine it would not be safe

.

 

I've done the chemistry. It just doesn't work. It's a myth, and somebody is trying to rip people off.

Also, patents expire in 20 years--those patents you claim are being hidden, can't be after 20 years.

 

It is a myth.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

 

How do you know this isn't just government damage-control written by professional hired sophists? Anytime one of the government's dirty little secrets gets out, they hire public-relations agencies to do damage-control. A classic example is the Apollo hoax.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

 

These stories may or may not be true.

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=941

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982; in Denver, Col.; I designed and built an ugly but functional vapor carb. for my 1967 Dodge Coronet. It used exhaust heat to assist in the vaporizing of the gasoline- which was sprayed into the heat exchanger at the bottom of the device- and the vapor rose through a maze of approx. 25 feet folded back and forth on itself at which it exited into a 2 1/2″ ID hose (radiator hose) which I ran to an adapter on top of my existing carb which I used to start the 318 cubic inch engine. I achieved 87 miles per gallon. The machine shop that I had help me make the contraption told me that they had helped an earlier inventor with a very NICE carb. to adapt it to his auto – with approximately similar results. (Mine only ran me about $500 total w/ all the junk you have to assemble to get it to work.) They warned me not to make it too public, because the other inventor got the notice of some oil people from Texas who came up and gave him an offer to assume his invention. He refused. His home and workshop burned down 2 days later! He moved to parts unknown.
I just thought you might find it interesting to hear from someone who has done this before. My point in the whole thing was; “If I could achieve 80+ mpg with a total of $500 invested- on a ’67 Dodge Coronet 318 V8; what could Chrysler do with the millions they have to invest?”

“In 1933 Charles Nelson Pogue made headlines when he drove a 1932 Ford V8, 200 miles on a gallon of gas during a demonstration conducted by The Ford Motor Company in Winnipeg, Manitoba using his super-carb system.” The Pogue Carb went into production and was sold openly. [317 were sold?] In the opening months of 1936, stock exchange offices and brokers were swamped with orders to dump all oil stock immediately. His invention caused such shock waves through the stock market, that the US and Canadian governments both stepped in and [successfully] applied pressure to stifle him.
“he saw Mr. Pogue in the midst of a bunch of oil company big wigs. He named the wigs, but I forget the names. They were heads of Texaco, Shell, Esso, etc. Some of them had red faces, and Mr. Pogue looked like a trapped rabbit.”
Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry.
[ see photo of Don Garlits with Pogue carb. on "Super Carburetors Hist." page ]
see Charles Pogue Carb.

Ron Brandt is the inventor of the perm-mag motor.
When he was a young man, he invented a 90-mpg carburetor. He was paid a visit by a man from Standard Oil, another man, and two men wearing US Marshal uniforms. They told him that if he ever made another carburetor, they would kill him, his wife, and two young children. He was quickly persuaded that his life wasn’t worth a “damn” carburetor. He happened to think to memorize the badge numbers of the two US Marshals and so had an attorney in Washington, DC check with the US Marshal’s office. They had no record of the two badge numbers.

Tom Ogle, a 24 year old mechanic drove 200 miles in a 1970 351 ci. Ford on 2 gallons of gas. Other mechanics and engineers checked for hidden tanks, none were found. Reporters and a camera crew went with him 100 miles out and back; 200 miles 2 gallons. He claimed from the beginning that he did not know exactly how the system worked, just that it did and he proved it time and again. He had hoped other engineers would help to explain what he was doing. I have seen three different news articles on him and reprinted here for your understanding. One states he turned down $ 25 million from backers that would keep it off the market. He had a hard time getting backers that had integrity. Everybody wanted controlling interest and he knew it was going on the back shelf. Tom resisted and tried to get it on the market. Later he was shot and survived, only four months later he did die of an overdose of darvon and alcohol with no suicide note. Nobody explained what became of his idea. A patent was issued Dec. 11, 1979 # 4,177,779. Four months after his death.
see Tom Ogle Carb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see no reason to rule them out yet.

 

I have heard these stories on high mileage carbs and such since I was a small child. Then I hear that all were hoaxes. But given the hard fact of big money controlling so much, in their own self interest, it is certainly possible that innovations that would hurt the rich who are invested in fossil fuels, being crushed is certainly within the realm of possibility.

For think about it. The efficiency of the internal combustion engine has not seen much in improvement, while other technologies that would not hurt the fossil fuel boys has moved ahead exponentially. And that seems a bit fishy.

 

First, a disclaimer: I am NOT a professional auto mechanic.

However, I am a fairly experienced hobbyist who has built and raced numerous cars. My personal best is 10.59 sec quarter mile in a 1979 camaro with a 383 motor and a 6.7/1 roots style supercharger on e-85 fuel. I also had a good tailwind!

OK, bona fides established, on to the meat of the matter:

Yes, running super lean can get gas mileage bordering on the incredible. BUT, there are some problems with it.

First, a super lean burn mean lots of extra heat, more than the engine materials can stand. We're talking burnt rings, galled cylinder walls, burnt valves, in extreme cases it can even melt the exhaust manifolds to the point where they run like silly putty. It also means you get what the industry calls "ping" which is the fuel/air mix detonating prematurely (before the spark plug fires) that can actually blow a hole through the pistons.Your electronic fuel injectors are running your car about as lean as it can be run without damage to the engine components.

Second, super lean means no power, do you think the average american car buyer would go back to 50 HP passenger cars even if we could build an engine that would stand the heat? Your ECM (engine control module) adjusts the fuel flow for a richer mix under load, and leans it back out as far as feasible at cruise/idle to get you the best power combined with the best gas mileage.

Third, actual gasoline vapor is dangerous! Far more explosive/flammable than liquid gasoline, and even more explosive than propane or hydrogen.

It has been considered and dismissed long ago as unworkable.

 

Of coarse any auto manufacturer that produced that tupe of milage would make billions in profit...not long ago detroit auto makers were on the verge of bankruptcy its rediculous to think that if they had such efficient engines they wouldn't have built them...why are all auto builders experimenting with hybrids and electric if there are super efficient gas engines with near zero emissions?...

 

I don't buy the whole idea of the 200 mpg carb, because the car company that could produce one of these would be "printing money" (meaning making so much money it's pitiful).

 

There are a few unique prototype autos on the road that are indeed the 200 mpg vehicles, and they are complicated, finicky machines that require constant attention from mechanics. There may be in the future, autos that are "normal" production vehicles that get fantastic fuel economy and are drivable as are the present crop of vehicles, but there is also the issue of over-all energy use, in that if the whole world were to become consumers at the same level as the "most advanced" nations on this earth, there would not be enough resources to provide that level of life-style. Something has to give.

 

Check this out.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...erica-planned-obsolescence-at-its-finest_news
http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05...lowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/
https://www.google.es/search?q=Volk...swagen's+New+300MPG&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.171

 

Here's something else.
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=1310

 

Even without using gas vapor (whatever that is), we could have pretty amazing mileage if we got rid of the AC, electronic locks, radio and music players and speakers, lowered the acceleration and the top speed... but you're right... no one is going to want to buy that car. We've done this to ourselves

 

Start watching this at the 2:00 time mark.

Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ct05io8F9A


If a gas engine will run on smoke, its running on gas fumes doesn't seem that improbable.

 

The above link doesn't work any more so here's some more info that explains the same thing. If a gas engine will run on wood smoke, the idea that it will run one gasoline vapor doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Firewood Powered Vehicles – The Original Alternative Fuel
https://www.lelandwest.com/blog/lis...owered-vehicles-the-original-alternative-fuel

COAL AND WOOD BURNING VEHICLES OF WWII
http://www.robertsarmory.com/gas.htm


More info...

Gashole
https://documentaryheaven.com/gashole/

 

totally agree... unless a oil company owned the patent

 

I'm just a layman but look at this.

200mpg-carb.pdf
http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploads/5/3/5/6/5356442/200mpg-carb.pdf

The scenario of an oil company holding the patent makes sense but isn't there a time limit on patents? I heard it was about eighteen years. I'd wager that if the patent were expired, anyone who tried to market such a carburetor would get a visit from some goons making him an offer he couldn't refuse.

 

Yet here you are a decade later, posting the same rubbish about the 200mpg car! It is beyond belief that you cannot grasp the simple fundenental here.

Gas has a specific energy output by mass. There is no magic way to draw more energy from the same mass. If you managed to get 200mpg the car would be ridiculously light, or would have stupidly low power. There is no way around it, this trade off is why vehicle manufacturers are constantly finding small ways to improve one or the other.

 

This is true but the argument is that with droplets of gas the combustion is inefficient and a lot of the fuel is wasted. And with vapor, the combustion is more efficient and more energy is obtained from the gas thereby increasing mileage and reducing pollution.

All if these people say that the mileage increased dramatically after the switch to vapor.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cars+running+on+vapor&qpvt=cars+running+on+vapor&FORM=VDRE

 

That's just nonsense. Modern engines achieve a +95% efficiency on gas burning. The MAJOR inefficiency lies after the gas has burnt. The engine block dissipates heat, as does the exhaust system. Turbos were utilized to claim back some of the energy lost in heat waste, but no amount of pre-treatment to the gas - vaporize it - will stop the subsequent energy loss through that heat. Plus, with gas vapors this is just plain dangerous. It's already a crazy idea to have vapor anywhere near a hot engine, in liquid form gas doesn't burn that well, but you start messing with vaporizing it and you are turning your nice little runabout into a potential mobile bomb!

They do, do they? Once again you seem to automatically believe the ones that have ulterior motives - extra views.

Will a "Gas Vapor" Container Improve MPGs and Fuel Efficiency? Let's find out! - YouTube

I suggest you stop believing junk:
Miracle Mileage Claims - AxleAddict
Miracle Carburetor | Snopes.com
Has a 200 mpg carburetor been suppressed by the oil industry? - The Straight Dope

 

Please show us where you got that figure. I googled around and got this figure.

https://direns.mines-paristech.fr/Sites/Thopt/en/res/TechnoCHP.pdf
/excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------
8.3 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES Efficiencies of internal combustion engines are quite variable depending on type and size: 15 to 22% for small gas turbines (micro-GT), 35 - 40% for large modern gas turbines, 25 to 30% for small gas engines, and 35-45% for large diesel and gas engines. Moreover, the efficiency of reciprocating engines varies little with the rotation speed, while that of gas turbines, which operate at nearly constant air flow depends strongly on the load.
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your problem is the same as it always is. You don't understand the subject. Instead of looking for the fundamental issue you google the overall efficiency, which amazingly enough includes the "MAJOR" problem I identified! Overall efficiency(thermal efficiency) is not the same as percentage of gasoline actually burnt.

"The MAJOR inefficiency lies after the gas has burnt. The engine block dissipates heat, as does the exhaust system. "

Go and google "where can I get educated"! Any unburnt fuel gets expelled through the exhaust of cars (benzene) - since this is very much a globally monitored issue, cars are simply not allowed on the road if they do this beyond certain levels. As I said, the gas is pretty much all burnt in the combustion chamber. The inefficiency figures you quote will always relate to what happens after this occurs.

Edit: Proving you don't ever read a damn thing if it goes against your immovable pre-formed opinion! Link in my post you just ignored:
Has a 200 mpg carburetor been suppressed by the oil industry? - The Straight Dope

"According to John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and an authority on internal-combustion engines, incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars. Fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent. While it’s true cars aren’t very efficient — only 20-35 percent of the fuel energy is converted to useful work — that’s mostly due to heat loss (through the engine block, out the exhaust pipe) and unavoidable energy loss during burning itself."

 

This smells like sophistry to me. There are people with technical backgrounds who say the opposite.

Start watching this at the 13:50 time mark.

Gashole
https://documentaryheaven.com/gashole/


Also, most of the YouTube videos in post #21 show that the tinkerers removed the carburetor altogether. Gas vapor is sent directly into the cylinders. Unless I'm missing something, there seem to be two methods: a super efficient carburetor and no carburetor.

What's your opinion of all of those tinkerers? Do you think they're all lying?