@mike brink I know lol we put a man on the moon ffs if this worked to save fuel people would be doing it and the government would be taxing it (or have outlawed it) ... ha
Simple Physics folks. It may have seemed like vapor in the bottle but was really a mist as Jaden Webb commented he in inadvertently made a carburetor. A potentially dangerous one.
You sir, are a national treasure. The things I've learned here are multiples of all of the channels that try so hard to teach people things. We all seem to learn so much more when we just ask questions together. God Bless you and those you care about for your efforts.
At the end of the video, as a bonus, you could end up throwing in an HHO kit, to test what happend if there is water vapor, gas vapor and HHO generator ;)
This may be an old video, but I figured I’d say I appreciate your efforts. I knew you’d make it run, but I was really surprised at how easily it started and smoothly it ran. You save me many pops in the shop. Don’t ever stop what your doing, it’s gold!
Look up the guy that invented the carburetor that got 60 mpg back in the late 60‘s His patent was purchased by an oil company. Then the solvent water fuel that was tested by the government in the late 70‘s someone had a patent that made this mixture coalesce and burn with no emissions
Now that's what I'm focused on. The automotive industry isn't focused on longevity or parts being spared. They are in bed with manufacturer to sell parts, and create a rotation on parts, cars and labor. That's the Truth Ruth ‼️
Even though this video is 3 years old you tube is still recommending it to people like myself. I can't believe this worked. Amazing video. Love how you take the time to set up everything so it's equal.
Actually, I'm not.... when I was a kid I had a go-kart that used a 5hp Briggs & Stratton engine.... it went about 35 mph on the country road we lived on......... until it ran out of gas, then it surged up to about 60 mph before dying..... If I had thought of this set up back then I bet I could have hit 80!!!
@@davidjones8942 The increased performance was due to a lean fuel mixture, which also greatly increased combustion temperature. Trying to run it like that for any length of time would result in engine failure. Also, while an rpm increase would likely result, theres no way in hell you got anywhere even close to nearly 2x the normal top speed. Even if the governor was bypassed, what you describe just isn't possible, since the flywheel and rotating assembly could not withstand nearly twice the RPMs.
@One Term Loser It seems you should learn to take your own advice. Also, since bringing him back to reality obviously hurt your feelings, it seems you are just as nuts as he is.
@One Term Loser Project much, little miss "One Big Loser"? I'm truly sorry that living in mommy's basement has turned you into a bitter, pathetic, slimy little troll. While having a face that only a mother could love and a body that no woman or man would touch without payment in advance does explain your unpleasantness, it doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of the world.
still better then seeing him as the seller when you pickup your used lawmower from craigslist; wood cylinder head, performance booster monster bottle, banana based oil replacement. then you know why the ad said "as is" for 2 our of every 3 words in the ad.
It could be but the water could be so little that its not harmful for the small engine, its just gas vapors and if there was water i bet that water will evaporate slower than the gas.
Water is forming in combustion process, and is present as small particles in the tank, so it's ok. As a matter of curiosity, BMW recently uses water injection in some turbo engines looking for cooling and avoiding "knocks" (it replaces the excess of gas needed). In Brazil, hydrated ethanol powered engines is really common, and some corrosion problems on engines are as well
The majority of the water is probably already in the petrol and the 'bong' is probably performing a (admittedly fairly inefficient) vacuum distillation on the petrol resulting in a higher concentration of water in the residue.
It was done over 30 years ago at Ariz State Univ and was taken by the big P and lock away! The 2 biggest problems were ice on the carb and the motor over heating due to no evaporation of the gas to cool the engine. Air was drawn thru the pool of gas that had a fine screen it to breakdown the air flow to tiny bubbles to grab the vapor particles so it would only pull the vapor in to the engine block. A brass screen had to be added to stop any backfires from setting off the gas pool. It worked great until big P said stop and took it. Ariz State Univ also did a garbage to gas converter that was also taken by big P. The icing on the carb from evaporation was solved by wrapping a few coils from the cooling system around the carb with copper tubing. So I know it ca work!
Your level of creativity is insane. The things you come up with to do your tests are insane. I've been watching your videos for a couple years now and you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge.
His subs have a lot to do with it they sugest stuff to him to do and you can tell he youtube searches others ideas as like this he new what to do to make the set up i agree seems like a nice bloke dose some good tests but gets a lot of his ideas from his subs and youtube searches.
@@nofoxgiven6315 was gonna say the same thing. While I love this guys channel too, it wasn't exactly his idea, but he listens to his subs/comments for ideas which I feel is actually great because then you can draw from the creative minds of all those people rather than just 1.
You should give the credit to the commenters here for this suggestion on what this video was about. Project Farm did not come up with this idea as you said.
Did you check see if the RPMs were the same with the vapors as they were with the gas I believe that would be the only real way to know one was as efficient as the other
I think his method is just a limiting the gas waste that engine normally has. wether you like it or not, gas engines arent 100% fuel efficient. with him only running on fumes, there's no chance for the engine to burn more than it needs. *edited to correct voice to text errors
@@Dtr146 Actually it could still be getting an air/fuel mixture with the fuel part being "more than it needs". (i.e., running rich, lower air/fuel ratio than needed) To test this out -- You could add another gated air inlet anywhere before the carb to allow adjustment of the air/fuel ratio. I suggest a tee at the existing gate valve to add second gate valve that goes directly to atmosphere (air filter if needed). After you start the engine you could begin opening the atmosphere gate valve to lean the mixture until it was at optimum. (It would be optimum assuming full open of the valve was too lean to keep it running)
If a carburetor is performing properly it should be pretty well vaporized anyway. Burning vapor from an external vaporizer or fuel from the carburetor should give the same performance because to run properly you need the stoichiometric ratios of fuel. But being able to do it from a bottle and suction tube is incredible and a really great experiment.
Murdock S also cleaner..... WAY cleaner. Rigged a generator up one winter to prove it to my dad..... after 15 minutes of running we noticed in an enclosed garage our eyes weren't red and there was no smell.... a LOT of unburnt gas with carb
@jefmoesy well..... since I gotta spell it out..... in an Era of green green green environmental fucking clown shoes...... It's rather obvious a rag places over a muffler and there's NO odor obviously means less pollutants ie carbon.... and carbon build up..... Tear apart an engine that ran on propane.... it's similar
@JamesAutoDude brand new generator.. brand new lawn mower and a brand new snowblower all just happen to have carb problems. I know what you're saying. But I've demonstrated it for gear heads in their 70s and they didn't even think it would work..... needless to say they were surprised.... all of them know how to tune carbs and repair those problems
@@billmalec Liquid fuel is transferred and mixed with air in the cylinder, compressed and explodes by pressure and spark. Why do you think there is a problem with smog? Unburnt fuel. When pure vapour is burned, presto, almost 100% combustion of vapour fuel. Almost 0% smog in our cities. Plus, if the effeciency is, truly, 3%, that can be improved upon which is significant. Am I wrong or are we of two opinions saying the same thing.
Here for those wishing to experiment are possible ideas. A man that put a vapor chamber on his car got the equivalent of 400 mpg but it only achieved that when the gasoline was at a certain level. That has to do with how long the bubbles traveled in the liquid which means saturation or less saturated. Something to vary. Then there is the engine that sent the exhaust out a pipe and the intake air was passed through a pipe within that exhaust. Obviously this made the intake air hot. But not only that the intake air bubbled through used motor oil, or cooking oil. And I think that oil fuel was heated also. Then there is the automotive engineer that explained how 1000 might is possible and that car makers are in cahoots with big oil. He wrote an article saying way over 50% of the gasoline is not burned in today's cars and, (are you ready for this?) that's what catalytic converters are doing, igniting unburned fuel!! Now you can call me a conspiracy theorists but nobody can deny that a catalytic converter gets way hotter than an a manifold without a catalytic converter. So where in thermodynamics does the extra heat come from? So then the question is Can I make some fuel (probably not gasoline which is benzene which might ignite in the heating tube) can I heat some fuel and get a real good vapor air ratio that burns super efficiently and get 100s of times more run time etc? I think I would experiment with a generator and if I get it working there transfer it to a car.
Surely, the extra heat in a catalytic converter is caused by the restriction created by the device (or indeed, any restriction in the exhaust system) itself?
If you heat wood up to 211* F it will produce gas that can be piped directly into the top of a carburetor and run an engine. Germans proved it worked when they ran their cars on wood gas during a gas shortage. Could be a good video Idea.
I remember doing a chemistry experiment in high school where we heated wood in a test tube with a hose leading out to another one which was cooled. We got flammable liquid in the 2nd tube. I suspect that the German experiment you mention was doing basically the same thing only they went straight to engine in gas form instead of letting it turn into a liquid.
As long as I know, in such experiments, not all the gasoline can evaporate, some fraction consists of too big molecules... they remain left, and you have to find some other purpose forthis fraction. Also, this fraction (let´s say 20%) isn´t even soluble if the rest 80% isn´t there anymore, so you get an exclusion from the mix, an emulsion in other words, and that looks intransparent, millions of microscopic bubbles wanting to separate themselves from the small light-gazoline fraction that´s left. In other words, you get 10% higher mileage, but have to re-purpose 20% of the fuel.
@@ChaosSwissroIl heavy enriched, and so, not any more volatile, so, you miss out on a part of the volume. you can use this part in the gazoline with a normally carbureted engine or otherwise, but not in this engine... And i cannot imagine in how far endecane and dodecane are spontaneously volatile, i cannot recall this knowledge, but we´re talking here about instantaneous volatility, and not general volatility, that can take a couple of months... This gas vapor carburator is a typical destilation column, and you´ll always get separation, even if two sorts of molecules are almost exact the same volatile, but not absolute the same volatile.
Haven’t read all the comments on your video, but I recall reading that Tom Ogle heated the high octane gasoline for the Galaxie. Also, the vacuum was so great, it was caving in his metal gas tank. He instead engineered his own 2 gallon gas tank that was capable of the heat and the vacuum. Thank you for taking the time/resources to scratch the itch a lot of us DIYers have regarding energy efficiency.
He was testing variable loading performance. The test was genius and its the first time I have ever seen this done on video with one of these engines. Nobody ever shows a loaded vapor or GHEET engine.
Thank you very much for testing this theory. I have questioned this concept since I was a teenager and you have helped me understand the dynamics with this test. You have great videos with well thought out preparation and execution. Your ingenuity and practical mechanical abilities are truly exceptional and a pleasure to watch. Keep up the great work!
@@ProjectFarm my Dad is a mechanic and he said that “unless you retard the timing you’re not going to see a decrease fuel consumption” and the discoloration in the fuel is probably because of dust and other substances but me and him still enjoyed the video a great deal, thank you
Todd, you are a BEAST my friend! I'm over here watching your older videos just like they came out a few days ago. And thankfully, they are still very much relevant!
Old Diesel tech here. Retired x3, still learning! Thank you for your efforts. Curious as to head temp, emissions ect. I think you're on the right track. Enjoyed the video.
What makes you think the color I'd due to it being oxygenated? Gasoline has many components, it is a blend of different hydrocarbons which evaporate at different rates. It is more likely that factor causing the color change, imo.
The discoloration is probably a mix of dust and oxidation of components of the fuel. The performance differences due to contamination is likely negligible.
Timothy Jesse I suppose it's possible due to dust in part. No doubt without having a dust filter on the air intake dust is free to enter. However, when typical dust is allowed to accumulate on a surface over time it's not any shade of yellow. Just saying. Without a doubt there is a color change, which indicates the makeup of the fuel has been changed from the fuel started with. Cheers.
Technically not, he's created a bubbler and deleted the carb altogether. Carb spits out majority liquid that has been Atomized. Engines only run off vapor. A bubbler creates pure gas vapor. By creating a bubbler there is literally nothing a carb does for the engine. A carb only creates a fine mist of fuel--the closest thing to vapor. The reason you tune a carb is to make the liquid closest to gas. Inefficient. If he were to cut the intake line in the bubbler above the fuel line..the engine would've run even more efficient. Vapor combusts. Liquid ignintes.
@@ATFM01 liquid gas doesnt burn even in a combustion engine the carburetor "atomizes" the fuel and the termperature of the combustion chamber puts it into a gaseous state...
I have done a lot of experimenting with this. 1 you to run the vapor up through were the main jet use to be to be able to add air, you're running way to rich. 2 put in a one way valve to stop the bubbler catching fire. 3 as the gas is used up you need to heat the bubbler, 0 at the start ,90c at the end . you can run 25% water with a little soap but have to run heat sooner. When you get the mixture right the exhaust temp and fuel burn will plummet . Downside, driveablity is poor, it really only works well bellow 1/3 throttle, and you're always driving with a "bomb" in the vehicle. Maybe if you used an Arduino to control it, it would work. The irony... this was done on a 78 Ford Pinto so it did catch fire... twice
@Dušan Gajdoš alot of tequilas and vodkas have high alcohol content if you can get it running off rubbing alcohol i don't see why you can get it running off vodka
I have not read all 6'750 comments and then the corresponding responses so if this question was already asked sorry. Did you monitor RPM? You really needed some way of telling if the same amount of work was being done in both instances. If the RPM was higher on the vapor set up and lower on the gas tank set up then the vapor could still be doing better. If it was the other way around then the vapor was actually less efficient than the standard gas set up with the tank. Terry
The RPMs in the vapor setup were all over the place. At times, the RPMs seemed lower than the carb setup. I believe the vapor setup caused the engine to run lean, even if it is more efficient. A lean condition is problematic. Thanks for commenting.
Bubbling the intake air threw the fuel created a limited mixture im sure if you heated it also and throttled it in along side an intake charge could also give another result.
Project Farm it is actually running much more rich on vapour, that is why you can idle so low on it and have complete combustion. I have noticed with my own baptized that It can run on a tiny bit of vapour and a large amount of air. Thanks for your time and effort!
Controlling the RPM and the Fuel air mix would be difficult, I suspect this may account for different performance although the differences in fuel economy are likely due to slight measuring differences. This is however a great proof of concept, one thing I would point out is the white liquid left at the end will be lower grade fuel IE a lower octane rating, as most flammable fuel (evaporates most readily) will enter vaporise fastest, so the fuel left at the end is of low quality so engine performance will be lost over time due to the reducing fuel quality in the vaporiser.
Interesting and creative concept for getting the vapor into the engine, if I had a guess though I'd say the system was still pulling some of the fuel up and not complete vapor. The most famous attempt at a vapor engine I've heard of is Smokey's Hot-Vapor Engine where he used the exhaust pipes to superheat the fuel to vaporize it. I would attempt to replicate heating the fuel into a vapor and somehow feeding only that vapor into the engine. Loved the video
Becoming a fan of this channel. I love the experiments you do. So practical and relatable. And you still comment on all of your videos. This is insane. You got yourself a new sub.
@@ProjectFarm with your hard work and dedication it’s no wonder your channel is the size it is. Hopefully it keeps growing. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. Great contact my, man keep it up!
Completely rerouting airflow through the fuel chamber is less efficient than having a separate air intake line with a separate valve. In the set up that you created here the air/fuel mixture is directly proportional to the amount of air flowing through the fuel. That air, in turn, is the sole source of agitation. One alternative would be to make the agitation lines smaller, which would require a lower volume of air. Then, a Y fitting at the base of the air intake So that you could attach a larger diameter air filter with a valve. This will give you a much more fine tuned control over the air fuel mixture. Additionally, these configurations run extremely lean so adding a little bit of water to the gasoline would help in overall engine temperatures. I know that sounds crazy, but in practice it works very similar to a water injection system by adding a little more water vapor than ambient air to the overall mixture.
You covered some items of my critique. This test set-up for most applications is quite impractical apart from educational exercise. Adding water makes sense, a means to prevent a “backfire to evaporator chamber” explosion is the worst “safety” omission. One you didn’t mention though perhaps obvious is in this initial setup the air flow through the fuel being akin to a hookah (Sp, a water pipe) - fuel is filtering the air and canister will become a maintenance issue. He mentioned fuel turning yellow and air in the fuel making fuel cloudy (also less effective after a time by slow oxidation if left sitting). He didn’t cover detailed concept considerations before diving into the “build” - as a “test of concept”, excluding filter element may have seemed a high-restriction unknown, but dirty air will create other problems later. Addressing YOUR arrangement, a single filter into a common plenum feeding air to both the evaporator canister and the air-only intake line will work fine. You comment about smaller lines “taking” less air is physically true, evaporation efficiency increases with air turbulence so the goal would be throttling the best stoichiometric FINAL mixture to the engine (your separate “dilution” line covers that). That stoichiometric base line is limited by the saturated fuel vapor availability (think in terms of absolute humidity, and high humidity air means less room for fuel between the air molecules ), but is a fairly predictable limit. Your multiple air lines into evaporator canister are best handled with a singe line feeding to a “sparger” ring (effectively smaller holes distributed evenly at the bottom of the canister, to make smaller air bubbles which can become saturated vapor bubbles). Past each of those a canister level control is needed - as fuel is used the bubbling has less retention time for evaporation / air filtration, and extended time in that condition makes fuel vapor-quality worse. EDIT of 7/2/22: As clarification, “Vapor quality” is a parallel to steam quality. Bypassing the significance of the steam term, air holding as much fuel vapor as possible is “saturated vapor” (if the fuel was “water” the terminology would be “100% relative humidity”, such that “one more molecule of fuel vaporized” would precipitate a molecule of liquid elsewhere in the vapor space. In practical terms the fuel energy in the space would not increase further at that temperature and pressure. The problem ultimately becomes load/speed control, and especially lack of an accelerator pump effect for use on engines that have a varying load. The improvement you suggested as well as those I covered essentially make the canister into a modern carburetor. Opening the line from evaporator ahead of the bypass/dilution air line has the same effect as accelerator pump (a brief period of decreased air/fuel ratio into combustion chamber). With that part alone, I see little practicality versus the well proven carburetor tech, which even without an accelerator pump has a more consistent fuel-air ratio control characteristic. The only “really better” fuel delivery is direct fuel injection which is seen in modern vehicles and while better than carburization is overkill for small engines. Btw I mentioned the problem of backfire risk. Carburetors aren’t perfect in avoiding that risk but since the fuel is drawn into the air flow by the Venturi effect, reverse pressure from an intake manifold explosion or leaking intake valve would implicitly halt fuel feed. That effect is impossible with this direct evaporation arrangement, but the SATURATED fuel vapors in the evap canister won’t explode if that line remains protected/intact. HIGHLY LIKELY is nearly all of this work has been done before - a later comment indicated the Ford evaporator plate concept. Before that was the fuel dripping into the intake manifold,and slightly better yet the psychrometric effect, where air flow passes over a fuel-wetted wick for evaporation (like a kerosene/oil lamp without the wick alight), but controlling the air/fuel ratio for engine speed resolves to very much what you described - lots of physics, a little chemistry 🙂.
I’m certainly no engineer but what you said seems pretty accurate, if you have the resources and time I’d love to see a video of you making and/or testing this build.
Greetings from Sweden! I have watched almost every single one of your videos. They are amazing. And so are you putting all this effort in to them! Thank you for making them!
Great video! Very neat visual of how the expansion chamber works. BTW, all combustion is a correctly proportioned mixture of fuel (vapor) and air (O2), liquids never burn.
"Liquids never burn" is exactly why something like this can improve economy, it removes the waste that comes from un-atomized fuel that normally reaches the combustion chamber.
I remember reading a story in the local newspaper back in 1975 or 76 about a local man who had accidentally discovered a way to run his lawnmower on fumes like you did . He apparently did not use the vented jar like you but he said the vapor inlet line to the intake would actually ice and freeze up so he later used a refrigerator coil to supply the vapor to the engine to prevent icing up . He had according to the article converted a full sized car to run on his invention but had to add an accelerator pump system to get the engine up to freeway speed and drove the car across the country on a promotional tour to publicize it and showed his fuel mileage increases . There was a follow up story in the paper a short time later saying the fellow had been receiving death threats (he assumed were from oil companies ) as well as offers to purchase his research and not disclose any info about his discoveries. He supposedly finally accepted an offer for $200,000 to stop working on his fuel vapor concept .
Tom Ogle was his name...he modified a 427 in a 1970 Ford galaxy to get over 100 mpg. Drove from LA to Arizona on 3 gallons of gas if I remember correctly.
I always find it interesting that someone comes up with the fuel saving engine and then has an accident / suicide before they reveal the "how to " to the world. it seems if you follow the money that there are forces that do not want this type of thing to happen. Run your car on water only ? How is it possible that only one guy has discovered how to do it and now that he is dead no one else can figure it out?
Looks very interesting, I'll test it. As improvements, the pipes in the jar can be made bent so the air is forced to go centrifugal, so the movement of the gasoline can be more controlled and directed to create a vortex. for sure will improve the time. Another set-up can be made with bigger holes to increase the airflow( as setup can use 3-4 diameter and test which is the best as increasing the time)
I would say small would be better, look at where the valve is, almost all the way closed which tells me that the hoses ate too big. ¼" line I think would be better.
Forced air via a vacuum cleaner hose to the air intake ie where the air filter was. But I also had to pressurize the fuel tank cap to not have the gas shoot out of the tanks vent hole! The engine was a 3.5 Hp horizontal engine on a reel mower, the engine was say mid 1960's era as its engine vintage. You can hook up a compression test gauge to in the spark plug hole to measure with and without boost. My test data was in an old Clintons book that went under in Katrina. The without and without boost compression psi numbers were sort of like the 16.7/14.7 ratio ie the gauge pressure ratios. Many carbs have all sorts of vents thus just pressurizing the air intake will not work. ie gas flows out via vents like mine did ie the tank's vent hole. Thus before trying explore where liquid is leaking before any starting attempts!
+Tribulation Prepper. If we did that in the UK, the stewardesses would be handing out tins of baked beans. How about adding a propeller to the plane driven by pedals under all the passenger seats.? 😊
I love your channel. As I recall, Ford's first car simply dripped fuel onto a heated plate where it was drawn into the engine as it evaporated. It wasn't safe but it worked. That was a pretty good test, using a crude fuel vapor system vs a worn/crude carb. Comparing that to a FI engine w/ a more exact fuel/air ratio is another matter. A mix of the two technologies was done by Transonic Combustion. They'd heat/compress gas before injecting it under high pressure and the "supercritical fluid" would allow the compression stroke to fire the mix. They claimed 64 MPG in their test car, but MPG in testing is tricky. None of the auto makers took them up on their tech. (On a set no-stop run @ 40MPH, I can see a 70% increase in MPG in my current car.)
That carb and exhaust and Intake manifold super heated the large chain molecules to make it vaporize plus on the Model T(not all) the fuel is all adjustable by finding the sweet spot. The fuel system was made by Holley and was called a "Holley Hot Spot", also"Stromberg Hot Spot" back then the fuel was real and not additives and cheap alcohol junk fuel like we have today (mostly very light chain molecules that boil at 130 degrees up to about 415 like Ethyl used to be back in the 60s for High comp cars.. With modern fuel the way its been cracked it simply doesnt have the BTUs old school fuel was. The days of the 200 MPG carb are gone unless you want to crack some oil and make it larger chains and use lots of heat to vaporize it, which works if you have the equipment to distil ir.. thanks
Any chemistry major can tell you that this will be true, it's called activation energy, combustion is a chemical reaction, some chemical reactions have a higher activation energy than others, for example burning diesel requires more energy than gasoline, and gasoline vapor, requires less energy. By adding a - bong - err i mean vapor inducer to the intake you are lowering the activation energy of the fuel mixture by changing the state of the fuel, however, the small efficiency increase is not worth the risks involved with adding air, or heat to a tank of gasoline on a passenger vehicle. The claims of >10% more efficiency are simply B.S. however, as the activation energy of gasoline is
The secret is heat. If you vaporize gas at it's vaporizing temp (around 500 degrees) you will notice a large boost in fuel economy. The first patent was in 1932 by Charles Pogue for his 200 mpg carb on a Flathead Ford (look it up). It worked but was dangerous as the gasoline is near it's critical flash point. The carb looks like a miniature refinery sitting on the engine and used the exhaust to heat the gas to high temps. The best carb to use is one of the propane conversion carbs as they work well with vapor. The propane is run through a heater unit before the vapor is introduced to the carb, the heater unit is heated by the engine coolant at 180 to 190 degrees. Propane is very cold and needs to be warmed up. The heat units from the 60's through 70's were the best because they were bigger and had a larger heating area for the vapor and works well with alcohol. With all that said the perfect fuel to vaporize at a low temp is alcohol (it vaporizes at 173 degrees) ethanol to be exact and around 70 proof seems to work as well or better than 100 octane leaded fuel! If you run your lawnmower engines on rubbing alcohol 70 proof you will be amazed at how well the engine will run and after a couple tanks of alcohol the inside of your engine will be as clean as new and stay that way. Run synthetic oil and the engine will last forever! Vaporize with heat but be careful. Grain alcohol (ethanol, rubbing alcohol etc) is safer because you can put out an alcohol fire with water as it dilutes the alcohol and the fire goes out quickly. Vaporizing alcohol with 180 degrees is a lot safer than 500 degrees. Back in the 70's when OPEC screwed everyone with the phony gas shortage I experimented with alcohol fuel and found it to work extremely well. I could purchase 55 gallon drums of 190 proof ethanol and dilute it to 70 proof and go out and burn some rubber in my 68 Fairlane 390 GT. I ran everything from my lawnmower, several cars and pickups and a gas powered GM bus that ran on propane which was an easy conversion for alcohol vaporization. Alcohol won't start cold and needs some help. That's easy, just rig up a small propane cylinder for torches or camp stoves and give the engine a couple shots with a tickler valve and it will start up, stumble for a couple of seconds then it will run great. Adjust the carb for higher fuel flow. Have fun
there are a lot of causes why gas isn't vaporized by a heat plate nowadays. just two of them: 1) the vaporization of the gas inside the intake system is urgently needed for cooling the intake valve and the piston. 2) the efficiency of an engine drops if the intake mixture is warm. intake has to be as cool as possible.
The coleman stove style carb has been researched. problems with this system are obvious to anyone that has ever gone camping. The venturi type carb uses manifold pressure differential to accomplish the same vaporization as the heat carb. This can be demonstrated through Boyle's Law and Charles Law (Combined Gas Law?). I love a good conspiracy rant. Did you ever hear the one about: "The whole Studebaker factory is being stored in a secret government warehouse somewhere in Nevada"? As I recall it had something to do with a 200 MPG heat carb. I've found an understanding of basic Physics makes me more resistive to wild claims and the like. As for the oil embargo: It was their oil. It was in their country. They chose not to sell to us. What were we supposed to do? Send in the troops?
How about you use the Heat of the motor itself (to get it at least closer to the temperature) so that the economy is the same at the beginning but when the motor gets warm the fuel economy is better?
The engine temp is not hot enough unless you use alcohol. Doesn't work with gas. Some guys experimented with metal coils wrapped around the exhaust manifolds and run the gas through them and it actually helped. I know a guy that actually got over 90 MPG on a V-8 engine with this setup. After a couple of small fires he determined it was dangerous the way he did it but he proved it would work.
I actually saw this happen many years ago with a Ford PU with a 351 engine. It was converted to run on Duel fuel, Propane or Gasoline, the customer came in with a very rough idling engine on Propane. We turned off the propane and it started idling smoothly, the system used a shut off solenoid to stop gasoline flow. We checked it by taking the Gas line going into the carburetor off and there was no fuel flow into the Carb. We then to double check removed the Propane vapour hose going into the Propane mixer, the engine still ran, a good mystery to solve. We then thought of what could be any other fuel source and pulled the PCV valve from the valve cover, the engine quit. Pulling the oil dipstick revealed a very overfull crankcase. The diaphragm had burst in the mechanical fuel pump ran from the camshaft so gasoline was pumping into the crankcase and evaporating. New fuel pump and an oil change and the Mystery was solved.
I have to agree, looking at it, the purpose of a carb or injector is to make fuel vapor mixed at a decent ration( I wouldn't always say good) this is probably making a very rich fuel ratio(not sure I haven't tried it yet) but never the less, it will get your lawn mowed or your clunker down the trail if the carb clogs.
Yeah pretty much he made his carburetor. Which is why I knew ahead of time you can run an engine on vapors. That's what the carburetor in a regular engine DOES - vaporize the fuel and mix it with the air. Is it going to use less fuel? No, the engine as delivered from the factory *already has* a carburetor, so it's ALWAYS been running on vapor.
@Robert Andrews You are correct it could be a break through other than fuel is upper cylinder lubricant and when an engine runs lean for a long time the wear and tear is to much for the (wear) rings to handle and also a engine needs enough fuel up top to keep it cool or again the rings and hardened valve seats can fail
I tend to agree with your findings... just one thing, did you connect the blow-by pipe with your jar? Keep in mind that the excess fumes get circulated back into the system for a reason.
I just want to throw this out there for everyone. A gasoline engine runs off of vapor. That is the reason a fuel injector works better spraying the fine atomized mist vs a solid stream. The surface area of the mist allows the liquid to become a vapor which is combustible. A carb works on the same principle of turning the liquid into a gas. Engines run off of vapor so the end result in run time between vapor and "liquid" is to be expected.
Brandon FI works better because pressurized fuel is sprayed thru an orfice, atomizing fuel entering the manifold. Carbed fuel splashes around in a float bowl waiting for a sufficient amount of vacuum to puke it into the manifold. Although, most definitely more atomized, injected fuel is raw, not vapor. The carb mixes fuel and air together in an emulsion. And finally, gas vapor, also, can get too rich or lean. The test motor ran on both setups, but without an O2 sensor and an air/fuel ratio gage, we can't say whether both setups were stociometeric (sp), run time is affected.
Funny enough, most carbs vaporize fuel better than fuel injection, what with them usually being further from the intake valve and the high velocity you get through the throat of the carburetor. If your float is set too high, which can result in fuel actually dripping into the carb instead of flowing in a metered trickle, then you'll get liquid fuel into the cylinder. The gains from fuel injection are almost entirely due to more accurate and more responsive metering. Generally, you're stuck with fixed metering jet sizes in a carb for mid and wide open throttle, while the idle is usually adjustable (but still effectively fixed, as it's "set and forget".) With EFI, you can control the metering through both injector on time and fuel pressure simultaneously. "Mist is not vapor, no matter how small the droplets are." The mist vaporizes in the combustion chamber before ignition. Cold engines need to run slightly richer mixture because the fuel isn't vaporizing as well.
Your valve on the hose is not adjusting the air/fuel ratio into the carburetor. It’s only controlling the air flow. The air/fuel ratio is purely based on the amount of fuel able to evaporate in the container while you’re sucking the air through it. If you want to start researching improved fuel economy, you have to start adjusting the air/fuel ratio to perfect the engines efficiency. The engine was getting so much vapor it wouldn’t run until you closed the valve most of the way. Add a second valve taking air from the atmosphere into the same line. Then you can adjust ratios by manipulating the 2 valves.
Wouldn't it be such a better place for our engines if we could just put our corn back into corn flakes where it belongs and out of our gas tanks? I still want to smack the person what came up with the great idea of using a food crop for fuel. Not only does it decrease the overall efficiency of our engines (Ethanol has less potential energy than gasoline) but it decimates the storage life of fuel, gums up parts and absolutely destroys the carbs on small equipment.
If you want to know who, look up the book "alcohol can be a gas" though personally, Ethanol does have it's uses, for example it has been proven that fuels high in ethanol actually result in less pollution from the tail pipe (for example, e85 is a very clean burning fuel compared to E0) but the difference with E0 is, is it's much more energy dense, leading to higher MPG's, which is why I prefer to run E0 when I can
I did that on a 4 cylinder motor. Removed the cab. Installed a 2'' ball valve and a 1'' ball valve past the 2'' for air adjustment. I put gas ,old oil,water in the tub. ran the vapors with a 2'' hose. Had a 1'' hose to feed air in to bubble the mix. It ate it all. Ran great.
Excellent video. You really need to monitor the RPM & assure the same load to tell. Too hard to put a consistent practical load on a mower. Try it on a small generator with a constant electrical load like maybe heating elements of 1/3 to 1/2 the rated continuous wattage capacity. Monitor the RPM and load (with a kill-a-watt) meter to assure the same load. Also, the high agitation in the bottle suggest that gas droplets instead of actual vapor may be getting sucked into the air stream. Maybe a felt baffle (as thick as the suction can tolerate) some distance above the liquid level (especially when agitated) and below the suction line would condense liquid droplets and allow only vapor through. Thanks for your time & effort to do what most of us only wish we could try.
I had to laugh when I saw this. 30+ years ago I did extensive testing of vapor fuel using a large generator… slow running (1800) with a fixed load. I used a heating system to vaporize the fuel as it exited my vaporizer (fed by a pump). The reason for this was to vaporize ALL the gas, not just the lighter components as you did. With full control of mixture, and timing, I could see zero significant difference. This makes sense, because LIQUID DOESN’T BURN. It must be vaporized to burn. Carburetors meter the fuel into the air stream where most of it becomes vapor before entering the cylinder, where the heat of combustion vaporizes the rest….. Gas engines do run on vapor. I also ran a Ford V8 on diesel vapor, waste oil vapor, vaporized plastic, vaporized rubber, and vaporized wood. The latter was used during WW2 in Europe to power cars, trucks, and buses when gas became scarce. Called “gasogens”. Diesel engines also run on vapor. The fine droplets are vaporized by the very high temps from high compression. Miracle carbs like the famous Pogue never yielded the claimed results….. just a scam. I can and will say that to anybody because I played with it extensively, pursuing every lead. BOGUS!!
I remember in the early 1980's, the classified section of the Enquirer newspaper had several advertisements for "Secrets of the 200mpg carburetor" - which proved to be patent (?) drawings for the Pogue carb and the Fish carb a few of which were produced in the 1950's. One web site says they made and sold 125,000 of the Fish which supposedly delivered 20-30% better mileage than a conventional carb. Conspiracy theories held that Fish was driven out of business by big oil. Before my time anyway.
@@ilblues The Fish carb was manufactured for awhile…..A friend of mine had one, and we put it on several vehicles. There was nothing remarkable about it. It had a unique fuel metering system involving a tapered slot and an arm with an orifice that served as a jet. As you opened the throttle, the orifice followed the slot (inside the float bowl) as I recollect. The arm had a fuel passage inside it and connected to the throttle shaft, which if I remember correctly was hollow and drilled with multiple holes which delivered the fuel into the air stream. It was not a particularly good carburetor…..The ordinary Motorcraft and Rochester 2 barrel carbs worked better. I once saw a Pogue hanging on the wall in a neighbor’s shop…. In his 70’s at the time, he made wild claims about a Dodge Polara that supposedly made 200 mpg with it…. But he hung it on the wall when the car wore out and never used it………. Who wouldn’t have done the same ;-). You should have heard his UFO stories….. He watched them all the time supposedly. I have to admit that I once saw one and watched it through my 10X50s from an estimated 1.5 miles off for about 10 min. (1979). I was in an old IH pickup in the pine hills on a huge Eastern Montana ranch. I saw enough detail that I have no doubt these many years later what I was looking at.
@@stonetoolcompany3649 Being a Puget Sound native, I'm more fascinated with Bigfoot. When we finally capture one, I'm certain his UFO won't be far and that will solve both mysteries! They're really Wookies, you know. Seriously, I've never actually seen either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Recent UFO declassifications have been intriguing.
You could mount your fuel vaporiser directly onto the engine's intake manifold. It would need a name ... how about calling it a "carburettor" ? Heating will not vapourise the fuel any more, but will stop the possibility of ice formation in cold weather while also reducing the power output of the engine as the vapour has a lower molecular weight (less fuel/air mix per intake stroke).
It'd be great to see the results you get if you were to recycle the exhaust through a cooling coil and then into your fuel container replacing the air intake air with the exhaust. You may be surprised by the efficiency increase.
@@DaileyandrewEGR actually improves part load fuel economy by forcing you to open the throttle a bit further for a given engine load, decreasing throttling losses at part-load cruise. It's like a poor man's cylinder deactivation.
i was alway told that its called a gas pedle because the fule is turned in a gas as it is sucked into the cumbstion chamber thats in a car though not sure about a lawnmoer he seams to think it runs on the liquid and he got hundreds of people asking him to do it so geussing we are worg at least on some levle
atomized is the same as a mist. Vapor is particles suspended in air. The contraption he came up with ATOMIZED the fuel. In short, the gas is misted normally, the contraption caused a mist, thats how gas usually works.. he didnt really do anything novel here hahaha
@@plaidjoker1321 I've heard both terms used in relation to fuel delivery systems. I was trying to politely make the point that this isn't anything novel that he's doing, anyone who's ever played the E game knows you can run on vapors. Typically the reason it's avoided is due to sediment and other things collecting at the bottom of a fuel tank that can clog up a fuel pump, fuel filter, etc especially if such things are located IN the fuel tank. It is interesting to see what happens to the fuel if you're trying to deliver it as a vapor first rather than deliver it as a liquid and using injectors to turn it into mist. I have more knowledge in automotive engines than small engines. Most of my small engine knowledge is on m17 water pumps in the army which were carburated (real word, idk, is now), so forgive any gaps in knowledge.
@@plaidjoker1321 I'd go as far as saying we ARE agreeing, lmao. I was just trying to elaborate on my original statement a bit more. Add some more detail for other readers/viewers.
The whole "all engines run on vapors" thing is only part of the story. A huge factor in liquid fueled engines is that the fuel droplets have an evaporative cooling effect on the combustion chamber. Running a gasoline engine too lean can cause the combustion chambers to overheat and burn the engine up. On the same note if you run it lean enough you will start dropping the temperature and lose power. We see this in natural gas and propane engines. You can run a gaseous fueled engine as lean as you want until it stalls, and the temperature drops with it..
yeah but that's why the water mist systems exist, to solve that problem. The idea is to add water mist to the air mixture to then cool the lean air/fuel mixture which should burn hotter and more efficient, which then gets instantly cooled to about 100ºC by the water boiling and expanding 16 times, hence boosting the compresion. The only downside is that you have to run the engine with less or no water and rich for say 5 mins before turning it off to avoid rusting it. Maybe if they made some parts of stainless steel or titanium (piston rings, valves, etc) for the weight and streght sensitive parts, it could work but the problem is people just dont care for the car, not understand such a simple proceedure, even if it could be automated by the computer. Hence no car manufacturer implements it. Plus you need distiled water or distiled mixed with alcohol for the mister so another thing to refill aside from the fuel. Remember the volkswagen fiasco? it was because they needed to refill the urea for the filters, and people werent gonna do it so although it worked, they knew people were too stupid to actually refill the urea for the filter.
Carbureted engines do this already. The carb atomizes the fuel, then when the fuel gets into the warm engine and is exposed to the lower pressure, it vaporizes.
@@gjamaica3167 It looks like it has about the same capacity. Size is irrelevant here. Ultimately gas engines all burn vapor. The only difference is where the fuel becomes vapor. Liquid gasoline won't burn. It is pretty volatile, (meaning it evaporates fairly quickly without high temperatures,) so the vapor in sufficient concentration will burn easily. The remarkable thing about this video is that such a crude vaporizer actually seems to work pretty well!
I've been watching a lot of these are appreciate the effort you've put into them. About this one, what the majority don't understand is gasoline as a liquid is not even flammable. The carb venturi or the injection system atomizes the gas to where there will be enough vapor by the time the spark plug goes off. I experimented quite a bit in my youth with that knowledge. One of them was to use exhaust pipe (made a 'S' shape and welded plates to mount) to mount my carb 2 feet away from the engine to give the gas more time to evaporate. That alone increased the average mileage in that 72 Plymouth from 17 to 24 mpg. But I had a problem with a certain outside temp and humidity, it would cause ice crystals to form so I had to try and heat the tube. It helped, but I finally gave up since I needed a machine shop to make things I really needed to continue. The problem you had with your mower setup is a fixed amount of air traveling thru the liquid. Ideally you need a separate way to vaporize the gas and have a way to control the vapor/air mixture before you get to the throttle. If a fuel injection type system could inject the proper amount of vapor instead of raw gas, it could be the best mileage possible. The problem is heating gas to vaporize would be dangerous, so impractical at this stage. But this is the reason economy figures have been rising. Carbs have the be the most inefficient method possible as they are just dumping raw gas into the intake. Again, thanks for all the time you spend making the wonderful videos!
Project farm, i agree with a comment I read below about regulating air flow into the container to achieve an a/f ratio. However a simple voltage meter and an O2 sensor threaded into the muffler reading voltage 0-1v DC would show this balance. I would love to see this in future video.
Hi Todd, I absolutely love your videos! Have you ever considered trying to get an engine running on wood gas using a gasifier? I have seen a few people pull it off on UA-cam in the past, and would love to see how you would go about doing it! If I recall correctly, the U.S. Government released documentation on how to make a gasifier and run an engine on wood gas in an emergency situation. Definitely worth looking in to if you have the time!
@@ProjectFarm I concur on this one. I would love to see you work with a wood gasifier. But my request goes above that. This is an old WWII or before technology that I think someone could improve modern day. I want to see you build this and improve it to whatever perfection you can reach. There is FEMA documentation on a wood gasifier. But there are also many videos on youtube about it. I've got a couple to get you started here below. They're some of the better postings I've found. Cant wait to see you do this idea! My post on colin furze gasifier video The cyclone filter seems to be extremely helpful in a wood gasifier for removing junk. Also you need to cool the gas way down, this cleans the gas more and makes it denser. Also your final filter medium doesn't seem to be dense enough. Usually people use like hamster bedding or hay packed in to catch the rest of the particles. The heat in this causes 20% H2, 20%CO, 5%CH4, and the rest nitrogen. You do need dry wood to best do this and pellets are a common fuel. Some good areas to find information on these devices are these videos, "Running Your Engine on Wood-Gas with Wayne Keith!", "Wood Gas Part 2: Extras and In-Depth Info", and "amazing homemade gasifier uses wood pellets to run generator -- renewable alternative energy video". One last place to get a lot of good information about these is from the United States FEMA-Gasifier-Plans.
Project Farm Hey thanks for the reply. It's very cool to know that you take the time to read the viewers comments. The videos are great and a lot of fun to watch. I know a lot of us out there wish we were able to test some of the things that you actually do. Hope everything continues to go well!
@@Daniel-59 it isn't snake oil. And the whole snake oil phrase has merit. Lard from meat is quite useful. Especially in survival situations. Ultrasound vaporization is used extensively with liquids. Combustible ones as well. Fact remains, though. No one wants to microwave combustible liquids. It's dangerous. Most people have problems putting an electric liquid pump in gas tanks which very clearly have electricity terminals connecting to them. Especially when they think about those terminals or wires arching in some fashion and exploding the fuel tank.
I'm surprised you did not wear protective gear in case of an explosion. Also a splash plate in the container to keep fuel from splashing up and accidently getting splashed up to the intake port would have been a better design as well as using an accurate measuring device for the fuel. I also noticed you could not throttle down to an idle so maybe a better control on the gas line.
He wanted to keep it simple as a pure Demo. If you start adding splash plates etc folk will think there's hidden gadgetry powering the engine. No need for accurate fuel measuring as the consumption difference was not significant enough
I know this is an old video, but I would love to see a revisit with a wideband O2 sensor and gauge in the exhaust and see how close to stoich the mix is.
Exactly what I was thinking. In order to get great gas mileage you need to lean it out. But you can't do that under load. That's a light cruise situation. Anyways you go too lean and things melt. You would need an exhaust gas temperature sensor to make sure you are safe. I was skeptical it would even work myself....
An engine doesn't burn liquid fuel. Liquid fuel doesn't burn. Just the vapors. It's just a matter of where the fuel is vaporized, at the fuel injector, the carburetor, or outside the engine in a a clear jar.
You have to heat the fuel or use a special energizing process like the GEET, or add HHO mixed with air and water (and possibly nitrogen compounds which result from the electrolysis if you use salt as an electrolyte).
Gasoline is hydrophilic. It will pull moisture out of the air. So yes, it stays cloudy. It's a bit of a problem, the fuel will get more and more diluted from picking up moisture from the air. The main issue is some of the water will settle back out after sitting, especially if the fuel has ethanol in it. Adding a desiccant to the bubbler will delay the issue so you have to dump the bubbler less frequently.
You ARE THE F---'N MAN!!!! Much Love from Rochester NY. So appreciate every single comparison that you've done. You are exceptionally unbiased, honest and and straight to the FACTS...Please keep up the amazing work, we so enjoy all of your videos!!!!!
I have always wanted to see someone who was unbiased test the Flex Seal/Flex tape because you see it on TV with all the neat stuff that can do and then if you go to like carnivals and stuff they have people setup that demonstrate it but they're usually somebody with that company so they will make it work to their advantage somehow I would like to see someone like you test it and every way that you can think of possible and I would also like to add that I thoroughly love your videos and I've lost every one of them and you're awesome please keep doing what you do
I own a pool service business and if I can't make a repair that day I'll hit it with flex seal and then get to it later that weak. Pretty decent product
@@paulh2981 As the air is bubbled through the fuel the moisture from the air will go into the fuel. Fuel is hydroscopic. That's why the fuel is cloudy at the end
My body: „You REALLY should go to sleep now!!!“ My eyes to my brain: ENGINES RUNNING ON VAPORS My brain to my fingers:“Welllllllllll, let‘s give it a try......“
Smokey Yunick proved many decades ago that a metering device is necessary to reach the proper stociometric ratio of between 12 and 14 to 1. [the higher # being air.] and this would be necessary with any engine using gasoline, whether vaporised or atomized. A ratio of approx 12 to 1 is needed for a heavy load and approx 14 to 1 i is used in a steady state, no load , coasting mode. Engineers do this kind of work everyday. Ratios might vary using other gaseous fuels such as propane.
You need to "T" in an extra air valve so you can adjust fuel vapor and air mixture. We ran on waste oil with gasoline, diesel + gasoline, water + gasoline, virtually any ratio as long as the gasoline is being vaporized it will run. A good way to get rid of waste/dirty fuel. :-)
Yes, it makes a spray mist, which becomes a vapor upon entering the combustion chamber. More recent videos show this process in a see through cylinder head with a high speed camera.
But all of that unburnt fuel that can't convert fast enough becomes the black carbon that screws our bearings, rings and oiling systems. If you run clean your oil lasts longer and you don't have carbon scoring the inside of your engine so your parts last longer. The fresh oil change that I did 5 years ago is still in my car that I show this tech off with. Pull the dipstick and you still see the color of the oil. It's not black!
Yep, how did we ever get along before. Gas motors need a mix of about 14:1 for peak power and heat control. Wonder how much horse power the motor makes this way, bet its way below rated output.
Joe Cos maybe, maybe not... It's kinda like running nitro methane BECAUSE the fuel is oxidized, but w/o a Dyno test and/or some type of regulator to get a better fuel/air measurements???? Who the hell knows.
Who the hell knows. Well the people that designed the motors for one. Fact: Its all about BTU content of fuel and how much you can run thru a motor over a given time period. Supercharging is one way to up the BTU's pushed thru a motor or turbo charging. Fact: Fuel is vaporized not oxidized. Oxidation changes a given property of a substance, like steel rusting. Fuel in a motor does not go thru this process it is simply vaporized. Same for every liquid fueled motor. You can call me a fool but there are hard and fast principles that don't change in how motors function here. BTU content of fuel is one of them. Look up the different fuel types and you will see that diesel fuel and gasoline are not the same BTU content. This is clearly shown in how the engines that use different fuels produce horsepower. Given an engine size and how its aspirated proves this out. Diesel motors are clearly the top when you calculate H.P. and torque, BTU content is the variable. The lawnmower runs but it won't give its full HP rating without the correct fuel to air ratio, it just can't. So yes, who the hell knows? People that have been designing motors for well over 120 years. No need to be foul with your comments John, this is just the way that the laws of thermodynamics works and will always work.
I'm wonder what the air fuel ratio is with the carburettor and the vaporizer would have been good if you put an O2 sensor on the exhaust to get the readings and then tune the carburettor to have the same O2 readings as a vaporizer and see if you get the same fuel economy
You will always get the same fuel economy I would think within reason, it takes 14.7:1 to make it happy. 14.7:1 is the same if it's done with a carb or this vapor method. However the discussion of there being no waste I could see that giving you a improvement in economy but I don't think waste is substantial on modern engines, the emissions improvement if real could be a big deal. Even though man-made global warming is fake. Lol
+noahjames231 - You will still get NOx, and you will get CO if the mix ratio is imperfect, which it will surely be because of the difficulty of metering the fuel vapor.
duckslayer92 14.7:1 is the MASS, not volume. This demonstration is key for 2 reasons: to show how little gasoline it takes to run an engine, and to dive some insight into just how much “air” an engine pumps
duckslayer92 as I understand it, BTU is a measure of heat energy; BTU/hr is measure of energy consumed by work. Lower is more efficient as far as engines go, and given the runtime difference between the vaporizer and carburetor, I’d estimate a minimum 10% improvement in efficiency. Over time, that 10% or more could really add up. (Remember, the carb’d engine burned everything in the tank- if that was the benchmark rather than the vaporizer, there would be the ethanol left over, meaning a difference in volume consumed in favour of the vaporizer setup- lower btu’s consumed from less volume over slightly more time, or work done in this static test)
I have done something similar on a chevy geo sprint a few years ago. I used much less vapor than you did here. Testing at 60 mph the car went from 38 mpg to over 70 mpg every time I checked it. I went to the same gas pump every time and set on the slowest setting and when it kicked off I did my calculations from there. I'm quite sure there is another 20-30 mpg more to be had if I had some funding and a couple engineers to work with me....
I've been watching project farm for a few months now and find it extremely fascinating. Thanks for the continuous hard interesting work you put into those projects. "And may it continue. 👍 Matt from Scotland.
I'm thinking the fuel change color in the container because you were filtering the air with the fuel you would probably want your intake air to have a filter on it if you were to do this full-time that's awesome
Fuel changed color due to water condensation. When the fuel evaporates, it absorbs heat and cool the surrounding. Water vapour in the air condensed and mixed with the fuel thereby causing the change in color of the fuel.
You're one of a handful of channels that I always make sure to check regularly for new videos to watch but I rarely comment. This video is far from being my favourite of yours but I thought I'd give your algorithm a little boost while it's in my head 🤣
I love the electrical conduit :) I'm a big fan of using it for a variety of tasks - both metal and pvc conduit. Another newfound fav (given current lumber prices) - treated fence pickets. I've used at least 50 for recent (non-structural) projects that had nothing to do with fencing, and they're a fraction of PT framing lumber.
Shell Oil engineers where testing vapor engines, it’s well documented, your video makes me wonder if they were primarily interested in reducing smog because of the cleaner burn when running on fumes. It looks like the primary advantage to running on fumes per your testing, is reduced exhaust emissions, reduced smog. This is of great importance because less smog is a big plus. My girlfriend and I are designing a vapor fuel assist system for our car, we are interested in reducing smog. Smokey Yunick achieved great success improving horse power and reducing smog with a vapor fuel system. He was also using a turbo which act as a one way check valve for the vapors. Bill Kendrick’s here on UA-cam uses a different approach to running on vapors. And he notes to have achieved significant improvements in horse power, and reduced exhaust emissions as well as reduced engine temperature.
True Zero Emissions You're one of the few who remembers Smokey Yunick who answered readers' car every month in Popular Science magazine for years, long before they turned up their noses to practical things. Smokey's engine garnered attention from many car companies but he said they complained about meeting emissions standards--I suspect corporate inertia unless evil can be proven. Similarly, no manufacturer of gasoline engines has yet embraced the amazing Steam-O-Lene water injection system which is also for real but requires change in the mind of engine designers and their bosses.
True. And that 2 to 3% rise in efficiency calculates to Billions of dollars. Who loses out with better efficiency and less smog? The Government and big oil. Less gas tax and justification, and less gas consumption.
JRMCNEA His test was way too inaccurate to see an actual change. That 2-3% could be laying on the bottom of that gas tank or could be explained by his inaccurate measurements.
Well in a sense engines DO run on gas vapor, since the carburetor creates gas vapor from liquid gas and mixes it with air, the resulting vapor is feed into the manifold to the combustion chambers. So this sounds like you've turned the gas tank into a carburetor. Actually similar to the setup that runs my propane generator, the liquid propane is converted into a gas (vapor) by the regulator and then fed though a pipe to the engine.
propane is turned into a vapor by the evaporator which has hot engine coolant running through it you need to take a closer look at automotive lpg systems i work on them all the time
Rackstar, they do, but not how you are thinking of vapor. Vapor, by definition is liquid particles suspended in a gas. In this case its gasoline particles suspended in air. A carb/injector does this through atomization (forcing the liquid through a small opening to allow it to form very small particles). The process in the video creates vapor through forced evaporation. Different roads to the same result: an air/fuel mixture in the form of fuel vapor.
Where the conspiracy falls apart, is that moving where it turns to vapor or is atomized, from the venturi to the fuel tank, doesn't change the combustion process.
Gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it. All engines run on gas vapors, they don't burn liquid gas, as the gas is atomized upon entering the combustion chamber. This increases surface area to increase vaporization. Liquid gas is very hard to ignite, gas vapor is highly flammable, and very dangerous.
You point out a basic rule of physics that seems to escape most of the fairy dust and unicorn believers. Some people seem so hell bent on wanting to believe in a miracle ( or conspiracy) they will throw common sense/ fact and logic out the window to fool themselves.
Shelby Seelbach "gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it"....that is assuming that your engine is already 100% efficient and that you cannot reduce wastage any further.
Pixl Rainbow no matter how efficient your motor is, gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it. Nothing you said makes anything i said incorrect. No motor even burns gas at 100 percent efficiency. This would require an air to fuel ratio of approximately 15 to 1, which is known as a stoichiometric (not sure of spelling any more) mixture in which all fuel and oxygen are consumed. All motors run slightly rich to allow the unburnt fuel to carry heat away from the combustion chamber. This is why you have all the shit on your car, egr, catalytic converter, etc. to deal with unburnt fuel in the exhaust. Of course this motor will run on gas vapor, all gas burning motors run on gas vapor already.
2-3% fuel economy improvement plus the potential to reduce evaporative emissions looks like a plus-plus to me. I would bet the engine oil would look a lot cleaner at regular oil change intervals.
Sue, A petrol engine will only run on an air/fuel ratio of between 12 and 17 to one thus it does not matter if the carburetor is used or if the air is sucked through the petrol as long as you have the right mixture of air/fuel ! THIS experiment was DANGEROUS ! !!!! If that engine backfired [Say the mixture was weaker] Thar glass Cannister would have blown up AND caused a big fire ! Anybody DON't try this ! A Friend of mine almost died doing this! He was in hospital for a long time. The only way to do this is by a fire-catcher [Fine sieve] in the intake pipe. This method WILL NOT save a drop of fuel, carboration or fuel injection is by far better. Please DON'T DO THIS !!!!!!!!!
Probably new for this channel but not for some people. They are very old videos and magazines reviews with the same results. Old technology that still works.
Also I bet the yellow gas that was left was just the heavier bits of the liquid with all the short chain hydrocarbons having vaporised..... Kind of the same thing that happens when gas goes stale, you let the volatile bits evaporate and leave the heavier bits behind
I was wondering about putting some water in the jar to act as a potential filter, but since it is running on vapors it shouldn't aspirate dirt as they would be too heavy to make it that far up the jar.
If you look closely you can see reflection of oil company guy with a gun pointing at him.
@mike brink I know lol we put a man on the moon ffs if this worked to save fuel people would be doing it and the government would be taxing it (or have outlawed it) ... ha
@@T2D.SteveArcs you cannot land on an image. NASA lies about the moon's realm. Real truth is stranger than any fiction.
Simple Physics folks. It may have seemed like vapor in the bottle but was really a mist as Jaden Webb commented he in inadvertently made a carburetor. A potentially dangerous one.
+Jeff sandrock no but you can land on a moon. Which definitely exists and did happen. What "truth" are you trying to get at? lol
No, that's the specter of worn out piston rings since he didn't use an air filter. . . 🤣
You sir, are a national treasure. The things I've learned here are multiples of all of the channels that try so hard to teach people things. We all seem to learn so much more when we just ask questions together. God Bless you and those you care about for your efforts.
Thanks so much!
At the end of the video, as a bonus, you could end up throwing in an HHO kit, to test what happend if there is water vapor, gas vapor and HHO generator ;)
You can tell this guy's a professional. He's JB welding with his nice pants on.
Thanks for sharing.
lol. Nice!
@@ProjectFarm Still relying to comments on a video 2 years later, good man.
You don't have to be a pig to be a mechanic , all you have to do is be prideful of what and how you do something...
@@ProjectFarm i suggest you look into Henry 'Smokey' Yunick's vapor engine. He does have patents on it.
This may be an old video, but I figured I’d say I appreciate your efforts. I knew you’d make it run, but I was really surprised at how easily it started and smoothly it ran. You save me many pops in the shop. Don’t ever stop what your doing, it’s gold!
Thanks!
@@TurboSpeedWiFi Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Know-it-all.
Look up the guy that invented the carburetor that got 60 mpg back in the late 60‘s
His patent was purchased by an oil company. Then the solvent water fuel that was tested by the government in the late 70‘s someone had a patent that made this mixture coalesce and burn with no emissions
Now that's what I'm focused on. The automotive industry isn't focused on longevity or parts being spared. They are in bed with manufacturer to sell parts, and create a rotation on parts, cars and labor. That's the Truth Ruth ‼️
Even though this video is 3 years old you tube is still recommending it to people like myself. I can't believe this worked. Amazing video. Love how you take the time to set up everything so it's equal.
Actually, I'm not.... when I was a kid I had a go-kart that used a 5hp Briggs & Stratton engine.... it went about 35 mph on the country road we lived on......... until it ran out of gas, then it surged up to about 60 mph before dying..... If I had thought of this set up back then I bet I could have hit 80!!!
@@davidjones8942
The increased performance was due to a lean fuel mixture, which also greatly increased combustion temperature. Trying to run it like that for any length of time would result in engine failure.
Also, while an rpm increase would likely result, theres no way in hell you got anywhere even close to nearly 2x the normal top speed. Even if the governor was bypassed, what you describe just isn't possible, since the flywheel and rotating assembly could not withstand nearly twice the RPMs.
@One Term Loser It seems you should learn to take your own advice. Also, since bringing him back to reality obviously hurt your feelings, it seems you are just as nuts as he is.
@One Term Loser Project much, little miss "One Big Loser"?
I'm truly sorry that living in mommy's basement has turned you into a bitter, pathetic, slimy little troll. While having a face that only a mother could love and a body that no woman or man would touch without payment in advance does explain your unpleasantness, it doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of the world.
@@davidjones8942 it's the fumes that ignite anyway.
Imagine being this dudes neighbour and wondering why he mows his lawn 365 days a year
lol Thanks would cause some interest!
still better then seeing him as the seller when you pickup your used lawmower from craigslist; wood cylinder head, performance booster monster bottle, banana based oil replacement. then you know why the ad said "as is" for 2 our of every 3 words in the ad.
If this guy was my neighbor I’d be saving lots of money on gas!
Lmfao
@@ProjectFarm now try this with the farmabago
The cloudiness of the fuel after running is due to water vapour in the air entering the fuel vessel
Thank you!
It could be but the water could be so little that its not harmful for the small engine, its just gas vapors and if there was water i bet that water will evaporate slower than the gas.
Water is forming in combustion process, and is present as small particles in the tank, so it's ok. As a matter of curiosity, BMW recently uses water injection in some turbo engines looking for cooling and avoiding "knocks" (it replaces the excess of gas needed). In Brazil, hydrated ethanol powered engines is really common, and some corrosion problems on engines are as well
Make sense!
The majority of the water is probably already in the petrol and the 'bong' is probably performing a (admittedly fairly inefficient) vacuum distillation on the petrol resulting in a higher concentration of water in the residue.
It was done over 30 years ago at Ariz State Univ and was taken by the big P and lock away! The 2 biggest problems were ice on the carb and the motor over heating due to no evaporation of the gas to cool the engine. Air was drawn thru the pool of gas that had a fine screen it to breakdown the air flow to tiny bubbles to grab the vapor particles so it would only pull the vapor in to the engine block. A brass screen had to be added to stop any backfires from setting off the gas pool. It worked great until big P said stop and took it. Ariz State Univ also did a garbage to gas converter that was also taken by big P. The icing on the carb from evaporation was solved by wrapping a few coils from the cooling system around the carb with copper tubing. So I know it ca work!
Thanks for the feedback.
Your level of creativity is insane. The things you come up with to do your tests are insane. I've been watching your videos for a couple years now and you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge.
Thank you very much!
His subs have a lot to do with it they sugest stuff to him to do and you can tell he youtube searches others ideas as like this he new what to do to make the set up i agree seems like a nice bloke dose some good tests but gets a lot of his ideas from his subs and youtube searches.
@@nofoxgiven6315 was gonna say the same thing. While I love this guys channel too, it wasn't exactly his idea, but he listens to his subs/comments for ideas which I feel is actually great because then you can draw from the creative minds of all those people rather than just 1.
You should give the credit to the commenters here for this suggestion on what this video was about. Project Farm did not come up with this idea as you said.
@@Rickbearcat I was commenting on the way he conducts the tests, Not the subject of the video. Don't be salty.
Replying to comments after 3 years takes a lot of dedication!
Thanks for watching!
One of the finest channels on UA-cam.
I think he just has default replies because he just says thanks I will try this to like every comment even if it's not related to trying anything
@@akmcg don’t speak of our hero like this
It sure does!
Did you check see if the RPMs were the same with the vapors as they were with the gas I believe that would be the only real way to know one was as efficient as the other
Extra Gas = Extra RPM 😂❤️😂❤️😂❤️😂❤️😂❤️😂❤️
I think his method is just a limiting the gas waste that engine normally has. wether you like it or not, gas engines arent 100% fuel efficient. with him only running on fumes, there's no chance for the engine to burn more than it needs.
*edited to correct voice to text errors
And torque? Again, just SWAG'ing.
These engines have a governor. They always run at pretty much exactly the same rpm. Just listen to the sound.
@@Dtr146 Actually it could still be getting an air/fuel mixture with the fuel part being "more than it needs". (i.e., running rich, lower air/fuel ratio than needed)
To test this out --
You could add another gated air inlet anywhere before the carb to allow adjustment of the air/fuel ratio.
I suggest a tee at the existing gate valve to add second gate valve that goes directly to atmosphere (air filter if needed). After you start the engine you could begin opening the atmosphere gate valve to lean the mixture until it was at optimum.
(It would be optimum assuming full open of the valve was too lean to keep it running)
If a carburetor is performing properly it should be pretty well vaporized anyway. Burning vapor from an external vaporizer or fuel from the carburetor should give the same performance because to run properly you need the stoichiometric ratios of fuel. But being able to do it from a bottle and suction tube is incredible and a really great experiment.
Murdock S also cleaner..... WAY cleaner. Rigged a generator up one winter to prove it to my dad..... after 15 minutes of running we noticed in an enclosed garage our eyes weren't red and there was no smell.... a LOT of unburnt gas with carb
@@MatthewGill-nv4tb I wouldnt call 2-3% a LOT...
@jefmoesy well..... since I gotta spell it out..... in an Era of green green green environmental fucking clown shoes......
It's rather obvious a rag places over a muffler and there's NO odor obviously means less pollutants ie carbon.... and carbon build up.....
Tear apart an engine that ran on propane.... it's similar
@@MatthewGill-nv4tbthat's probably more an injector jet / fuel delivery problem then a carb problem
@JamesAutoDude brand new generator.. brand new lawn mower and a brand new snowblower all just happen to have carb problems.
I know what you're saying. But I've demonstrated it for gear heads in their 70s and they didn't even think it would work..... needless to say they were surprised.... all of them know how to tune carbs and repair those problems
Project farm The best channel on UA-cam
Thanks so much!
And the most wholesome
Carburetor basically vaporizes the fuel before it goes into the engine anyway.
sorry,,, wrong.
Ok,,,...,,,, what is correct?
@@billmalec Liquid fuel is transferred and mixed with air in the cylinder, compressed and explodes by pressure and spark. Why do you think there is a problem with smog? Unburnt fuel. When pure vapour is burned, presto, almost 100% combustion of vapour fuel. Almost 0% smog in our cities. Plus, if the effeciency is, truly, 3%, that can be improved upon which is significant. Am I wrong or are we of two opinions saying the same thing.
@@og1ie so it's atomized with air
@@billmalec No, it is sprayed ( more or less) Look up the word atomized. We are done now. Have a happy day.
Sweet! A gasoline bong...
LOL! Thanks for commenting!
Raymond Stewart I was thinking this right away lollol
Just don't try lighting it up for a hit...KABOOOSH!!!
a few years ago I ran a small 3 cylinder tractor off something like this until I could afford a new carburetor and I called it my gas bong!
yeah but if you really want to blow your mind (SMOKE DYNAMITE)
Here for those wishing to experiment are possible ideas.
A man that put a vapor chamber on his car got the equivalent of 400 mpg but it only achieved that when the gasoline was at a certain level. That has to do with how long the bubbles traveled in the liquid which means saturation or less saturated. Something to vary.
Then there is the engine that sent the exhaust out a pipe and the intake air was passed through a pipe within that exhaust. Obviously this made the intake air hot. But not only that the intake air bubbled through used motor oil, or cooking oil. And I think that oil fuel was heated also.
Then there is the automotive engineer that explained how 1000 might is possible and that car makers are in cahoots with big oil. He wrote an article saying way over 50% of the gasoline is not burned in today's cars and, (are you ready for this?) that's what catalytic converters are doing, igniting unburned fuel!! Now you can call me a conspiracy theorists but nobody can deny that a catalytic converter gets way hotter than an a manifold without a catalytic converter. So where in thermodynamics does the extra heat come from?
So then the question is Can I make some fuel (probably not gasoline which is benzene which might ignite in the heating tube) can I heat some fuel and get a real good vapor air ratio that burns super efficiently and get 100s of times more run time etc?
I think I would experiment with a generator and if I get it working there transfer it to a car.
Is there any chance we can talk on another platform. Id like to pick your brain about some things you've said here.
Surely, the extra heat in a catalytic converter is caused by the restriction created by the device (or indeed, any restriction in the exhaust system) itself?
You probably have the best mowed lawn in the neighborhood.
WhatUpDicknose
Neighbors friend: wats that sound
Neighbor: it’s just the neighbor mowing his lawn again
I suppose it helps that he has some resemblance to Hank Hill.
If you heat wood up to 211* F it will produce gas that can be piped directly into the top of a carburetor and run an engine. Germans proved it worked when they ran their cars on wood gas during a gas shortage. Could be a good video Idea.
Great recommendation!
I remember doing a chemistry experiment in high school where we heated wood in a test tube with a hose leading out to another one which was cooled. We got flammable liquid in the 2nd tube. I suspect that the German experiment you mention was doing basically the same thing only they went straight to engine in gas form instead of letting it turn into a liquid.
ua-cam.com/users/MrTeslonianvideos?sort=p&view=0&flow=grid
Germans also used wood powered engines with practice purpose Tiger tanks.
"Garage 54" channel already did that ;) Would be nice to see a non-slavic approach tho :D
The cloudiness of the fuel could be due to water, from the atmosphere, having mixed in.
Thanks for the feedback.
As long as I know, in such experiments, not all the gasoline can evaporate, some fraction consists of too big molecules... they remain left, and you have to find some other purpose forthis fraction. Also, this fraction (let´s say 20%) isn´t even soluble if the rest 80% isn´t there anymore, so you get an exclusion from the mix, an emulsion in other words, and that looks intransparent, millions of microscopic bubbles wanting to separate themselves from the small light-gazoline fraction that´s left. In other words, you get 10% higher mileage, but have to re-purpose 20% of the fuel.
@@ChaosSwissroIl heavy enriched, and so, not any more volatile, so, you miss out on a part of the volume. you can use this part in the gazoline with a normally carbureted engine or otherwise, but not in this engine... And i cannot imagine in how far endecane and dodecane are spontaneously volatile, i cannot recall this knowledge, but we´re talking here about instantaneous volatility, and not general volatility, that can take a couple of months... This gas vapor carburator is a typical destilation column, and you´ll always get separation, even if two sorts of molecules are almost exact the same volatile, but not absolute the same volatile.
Could also be due to the fact that it’s filtering out dust and pollen since there was no filter on the air inlet on the bubbler tank.
On top of pulling particulate out of the air making it cloudy what is left over is additives that do not boil out in the mild vacuum.
Haven’t read all the comments on your video, but I recall reading that Tom Ogle heated the high octane gasoline for the Galaxie. Also, the vacuum was so great, it was caving in his metal gas tank. He instead engineered his own 2 gallon gas tank that was capable of the heat and the vacuum. Thank you for taking the time/resources to scratch the itch a lot of us DIYers have regarding energy efficiency.
What concerns me is the condition of this dude's lawn and his crazy mowing pattern. 😜
lol. Funny! Thanks
He was testing variable loading performance. The test was genius and its the first time I have ever seen this done on video with one of these engines. Nobody ever shows a loaded vapor or GHEET engine.
@@matthewszostek1819 WTF is GHEET?
Thank you very much for testing this theory. I have questioned this concept since I was a teenager and you have helped me understand the dynamics with this test. You have great videos with well thought out preparation and execution. Your ingenuity and practical mechanical abilities are truly exceptional and a pleasure to watch. Keep up the great work!
Thanks, will do!
@@ProjectFarm my Dad is a mechanic and he said that “unless you retard the timing you’re not going to see a decrease fuel consumption” and the discoloration in the fuel is probably because of dust and other substances but me and him still enjoyed the video a great deal, thank you
You're answering all of my big questions that I've casually wondered about for years.
Glad to hear! Thanks for watching.
Todd, you are a BEAST my friend! I'm over here watching your older videos just like they came out a few days ago. And thankfully, they are still very much relevant!
Thanks!
Old Diesel tech here. Retired x3, still learning!
Thank you for your efforts. Curious as to head temp, emissions ect. I think you're on the right track. Enjoyed the video.
Thanks!
Reuse that yellowish fuel with the high oxygen content and see if that performs better or worse than pure gasoline
Great recommendation.
What makes you think the color I'd due to it being oxygenated? Gasoline has many components, it is a blend of different hydrocarbons which evaporate at different rates. It is more likely that factor causing the color change, imo.
You could probably analyse before and after residue using chromatography at a local lab - not very hard to do actually. Interesting to see ?
The discoloration is probably a mix of dust and oxidation of components of the fuel. The performance differences due to contamination is likely negligible.
Timothy Jesse I suppose it's possible due to dust in part. No doubt without having a dust filter on the air intake dust is free to enter. However, when typical dust is allowed to accumulate on a surface over time it's not any shade of yellow. Just saying. Without a doubt there is a color change, which indicates the makeup of the fuel has been changed from the fuel started with. Cheers.
congratulations you inadvertently made your own carburetor.
Technically not, he's created a bubbler and deleted the carb altogether. Carb spits out majority liquid that has been Atomized. Engines only run off vapor. A bubbler creates pure gas vapor. By creating a bubbler there is literally nothing a carb does for the engine. A carb only creates a fine mist of fuel--the closest thing to vapor. The reason you tune a carb is to make the liquid closest to gas. Inefficient. If he were to cut the intake line in the bubbler above the fuel line..the engine would've run even more efficient. Vapor combusts. Liquid ignintes.
@@ATFM01 liquid gas doesnt burn even in a combustion engine the carburetor "atomizes" the fuel and the termperature of the combustion chamber puts it into a gaseous state...
"Burning" liquid fuel is just burning the vapours of the fuel as it the molecules speed up and become a gas....
What if it was water? Or crude oil? ua-cam.com/video/YGezzQBAF9U/v-deo.html
@@dad5744 The mower wouldn't run. Don't believe idiotic conspiracy theories you see on the Internet.
I have done a lot of experimenting with this. 1 you to run the vapor up through were the main jet use to be to be able to add air, you're running way to rich. 2 put in a one way valve to stop the bubbler catching fire. 3 as the gas is used up you need to heat the bubbler, 0 at the start ,90c at the end . you can run 25% water with a little soap but have to run heat sooner. When you get the mixture right the exhaust temp and fuel burn will plummet . Downside, driveablity is poor, it really only works well bellow 1/3 throttle, and you're always driving with a "bomb" in the vehicle. Maybe if you used an Arduino to control it, it would work. The irony... this was done on a 78 Ford Pinto so it did catch fire... twice
What surprise me is that you always find the way to prove it. very clever, thumbs up as always👍👍
Gas mileage test: tequila vs vodka
@Dušan Gajdoš high proof vodka is
Back in the 20s and 30s people would use homemade moonshine as fuel for there cars.
You would end up in a ditch
@Dušan Gajdoš alot of tequilas and vodkas have high alcohol content if you can get it running off rubbing alcohol i don't see why you can get it running off vodka
Thomas Snitgen ....Sierra Silver Tequila, 150 proof.
I have not read all 6'750 comments and then the corresponding responses so if this question was already asked sorry. Did you monitor RPM? You really needed some way of telling if the same amount of work was being done in both instances. If the RPM was higher on the vapor set up and lower on the gas tank set up then the vapor could still be doing better. If it was the other way around then the vapor was actually less efficient than the standard gas set up with the tank.
Terry
The RPMs in the vapor setup were all over the place. At times, the RPMs seemed lower than the carb setup. I believe the vapor setup caused the engine to run lean, even if it is more efficient. A lean condition is problematic. Thanks for commenting.
Bubbling the intake air threw the fuel created a limited mixture im sure if you heated it also and throttled it in along side an intake charge could also give another result.
Very interesting... thanks for doing the test... much appreciated...
Project Farm it is actually running much more rich on vapour, that is why you can idle so low on it and have complete combustion. I have noticed with my own baptized that It can run on a tiny bit of vapour and a large amount of air. Thanks for your time and effort!
Controlling the RPM and the Fuel air mix would be difficult, I suspect this may account for different performance although the differences in fuel economy are likely due to slight measuring differences.
This is however a great proof of concept, one thing I would point out is the white liquid left at the end will be lower grade fuel IE a lower octane rating, as most flammable fuel (evaporates most readily) will enter vaporise fastest, so the fuel left at the end is of low quality so engine performance will be lost over time due to the reducing fuel quality in the vaporiser.
Interesting and creative concept for getting the vapor into the engine, if I had a guess though I'd say the system was still pulling some of the fuel up and not complete vapor. The most famous attempt at a vapor engine I've heard of is Smokey's Hot-Vapor Engine where he used the exhaust pipes to superheat the fuel to vaporize it. I would attempt to replicate heating the fuel into a vapor and somehow feeding only that vapor into the engine. Loved the video
Thanks!
Becoming a fan of this channel. I love the experiments you do. So practical and relatable. And you still comment on all of your videos. This is insane. You got yourself a new sub.
Thank you! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
@@ProjectFarm with your hard work and dedication it’s no wonder your channel is the size it is. Hopefully it keeps growing. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. Great contact my, man keep it up!
Very interesting, RPM should have been taken into consideration, I think .
definitely sounded like it was running at a higher rpm via the vaporizer.
@@tomwerner3671 Doesn't he have a generator now? He could run the same test and see how much power it generates.
lawnmowers and all small engines in general are goverened by an airflow actuated governer, so as long as the throttle is open itll run at the same rpm
This is really the only channel of which I watch every video. Your tests are measurable and objective. Another great video, keep up the good work!
Thank you very much for the positive feedback!
Completely rerouting airflow through the fuel chamber is less efficient than having a separate air intake line with a separate valve. In the set up that you created here the air/fuel mixture is directly proportional to the amount of air flowing through the fuel. That air, in turn, is the sole source of agitation. One alternative would be to make the agitation lines smaller, which would require a lower volume of air. Then, a Y fitting at the base of the air intake So that you could attach a larger diameter air filter with a valve. This will give you a much more fine tuned control over the air fuel mixture. Additionally, these configurations run extremely lean so adding a little bit of water to the gasoline would help in overall engine temperatures. I know that sounds crazy, but in practice it works very similar to a water injection system by adding a little more water vapor than ambient air to the overall mixture.
You covered some items of my critique. This test set-up for most applications is quite impractical apart from educational exercise. Adding water makes sense, a means to prevent a “backfire to evaporator chamber” explosion is the worst “safety” omission.
One you didn’t mention though perhaps obvious is in this initial setup the air flow through the fuel being akin to a hookah (Sp, a water pipe) - fuel is filtering the air and canister will become a maintenance issue. He mentioned fuel turning yellow and air in the fuel making fuel cloudy (also less effective after a time by slow oxidation if left sitting).
He didn’t cover detailed concept considerations before diving into the “build” - as a “test of concept”, excluding filter element may have seemed a high-restriction unknown, but dirty air will create other problems later. Addressing YOUR arrangement, a single filter into a common plenum feeding air to both the evaporator canister and the air-only intake line will work fine.
You comment about smaller lines “taking” less air is physically true, evaporation efficiency increases with air turbulence so the goal would be throttling the best stoichiometric FINAL mixture to the engine (your separate “dilution” line covers that). That stoichiometric base line is limited by the saturated fuel vapor availability (think in terms of absolute humidity, and high humidity air means less room for fuel between the air molecules ), but is a fairly predictable limit. Your multiple air lines into evaporator canister are best handled with a singe line feeding to a “sparger” ring (effectively smaller holes distributed evenly at the bottom of the canister, to make smaller air bubbles which can become saturated vapor bubbles).
Past each of those a canister level control is needed - as fuel is used the bubbling has less retention time for evaporation / air filtration, and extended time in that condition makes fuel vapor-quality worse.
EDIT of 7/2/22: As clarification, “Vapor quality” is a parallel to steam quality. Bypassing the significance of the steam term, air holding as much fuel vapor as possible is “saturated vapor” (if the fuel was “water” the terminology would be “100% relative humidity”, such that “one more molecule of fuel vaporized” would precipitate a molecule of liquid elsewhere in the vapor space. In practical terms the fuel energy in the space would not increase further at that temperature and pressure.
The problem ultimately becomes load/speed control, and especially lack of an accelerator pump effect for use on engines that have a varying load. The improvement you suggested as well as those I covered essentially make the canister into a modern carburetor. Opening the line from evaporator ahead of the bypass/dilution air line has the same effect as accelerator pump (a brief period of decreased air/fuel ratio into combustion chamber). With that part alone, I see little practicality versus the well proven carburetor tech, which even without an accelerator pump has a more consistent fuel-air ratio control characteristic. The only “really better” fuel delivery is direct fuel injection which is seen in modern vehicles and while better than carburization is overkill for small engines.
Btw I mentioned the problem of backfire risk. Carburetors aren’t perfect in avoiding that risk but since the fuel is drawn into the air flow by the Venturi effect, reverse pressure from an intake manifold explosion or leaking intake valve would implicitly halt fuel feed. That effect is impossible with this direct evaporation arrangement, but the SATURATED fuel vapors in the evap canister won’t explode if that line remains protected/intact.
HIGHLY LIKELY is nearly all of this work has been done before - a later comment indicated the Ford evaporator plate concept. Before that was the fuel dripping into the intake manifold,and slightly better yet the psychrometric effect, where air flow passes over a fuel-wetted wick for evaporation (like a kerosene/oil lamp without the wick alight), but controlling the air/fuel ratio for engine speed resolves to very much what you described - lots of physics, a little chemistry 🙂.
I’m certainly no engineer but what you said seems pretty accurate, if you have the resources and time I’d love to see a video of you making and/or testing this build.
Greetings from Sweden!
I have watched almost every single one of your videos. They are amazing. And so are you putting all this effort in to them! Thank you for making them!
You are welcome!
Great video! Very neat visual of how the expansion chamber works. BTW, all combustion is a correctly proportioned mixture of fuel (vapor) and air (O2), liquids never burn.
"Liquids never burn" is exactly why something like this can improve economy, it removes the waste that comes from un-atomized fuel that normally reaches the combustion chamber.
I remember reading a story in the local newspaper back in 1975 or 76 about a local man who had accidentally discovered a way to run his lawnmower on fumes like you did . He apparently did not use the vented jar like you but he said the vapor inlet line to the intake would actually ice and freeze up so he later used a refrigerator coil to supply the vapor to the engine to prevent icing up . He had according to the article converted a full sized car to run on his invention but had to add an accelerator pump system to get the engine up to freeway speed and drove the car across the country on a promotional tour to publicize it and showed his fuel mileage increases . There was a follow up story in the paper a short time later saying the fellow had been receiving death threats (he assumed were from oil companies ) as well as offers to purchase his research and not disclose any info about his discoveries. He supposedly finally accepted an offer for $200,000 to stop working on his fuel vapor concept .
Thanks for sharing.
He was killed .... this immediately came to mind as well. He did not accept some money to shut up. He was suicide'd.
Tom Ogle was his name...he modified a 427 in a 1970 Ford galaxy to get over 100 mpg. Drove from LA to Arizona on 3 gallons of gas if I remember correctly.
@@christophercassidy9962 and it killed him So sad
I always find it interesting that someone comes up with the fuel saving engine and then has an accident / suicide before they reveal the "how to " to the world. it seems if you follow the money that there are forces that do not want this type of thing to happen. Run your car on water only ? How is it possible that only one guy has discovered how to do it and now that he is dead no one else can figure it out?
Looks very interesting, I'll test it.
As improvements, the pipes in the jar can be made bent so the air is forced to go centrifugal, so the movement of the gasoline can be more controlled and directed to create a vortex. for sure will improve the time.
Another set-up can be made with bigger holes to increase the airflow( as setup can use 3-4 diameter and test which is the best as increasing the time)
I would say small would be better, look at where the valve is, almost all the way closed which tells me that the hoses ate too big. ¼" line I think would be better.
Maybe thats where the efficiency gain was lost.
How much Nitrous can a lawnmower take?
Blorox Cleach The amount up to and including that which is nessisary to separate head gasket from block, or rod from piston.
I have seen that video. It is only one lawn mower and it is from 2006 so engines and what not have probably changed a little bit
I boosted a flathead Briggs 3.5 HP with 2 psi boost back in high school with no problems. :)
forced injection or nitrous?
Forced air via a vacuum cleaner hose to the air intake ie where the air filter was. But I also had to pressurize the fuel tank cap to not have the gas shoot out of the tanks vent hole! The engine was a 3.5 Hp horizontal engine on a reel mower, the engine was say mid 1960's era as its engine vintage.
You can hook up a compression test gauge to in the spark plug hole to measure with and without boost. My test data was in an old Clintons book that went under in Katrina.
The without and without boost compression psi numbers were sort of like the 16.7/14.7 ratio ie the gauge pressure ratios.
Many carbs have all sorts of vents thus just pressurizing the air intake will not work. ie gas flows out via vents like mine did ie the tank's vent hole. Thus before trying explore where liquid is leaking before any starting attempts!
Just before the 8 minute mark I love how every lawnmower vibrates just right to make the wheels turn when not touching the ground.
Thanks for sharing.
they call that inertial propulsion =)
@@xoxoXoieoxox
its called vibration
LMAO He gets it running.. and next shot is the tank taped to the mower mowing the grass. I just spit up my drink laughing so hard.
Thank you!
I had a mental image of a 747 crossing the Atlantic with all the passengers blowing into bottles of gasoline. 😉😉😉
Yeah that cracked me up also... Especially since he said ""I don't think it's going to work"" and then like one minute later he was mowing lol🤣
@@wilsjane I am getting a mental image of Areomexico Airlines passengers with tubes up their butts!
+Tribulation Prepper. If we did that in the UK, the stewardesses would be handing out tins of baked beans.
How about adding a propeller to the plane driven by pedals under all the passenger seats.? 😊
I love your channel. As I recall, Ford's first car simply dripped fuel onto a heated plate where it was drawn into the engine as it evaporated. It wasn't safe but it worked. That was a pretty good test, using a crude fuel vapor system vs a worn/crude carb. Comparing that to a FI engine w/ a more exact fuel/air ratio is another matter. A mix of the two technologies was done by Transonic Combustion. They'd heat/compress gas before injecting it under high pressure and the "supercritical fluid" would allow the compression stroke to fire the mix. They claimed 64 MPG in their test car, but MPG in testing is tricky. None of the auto makers took them up on their tech. (On a set no-stop run @ 40MPH, I can see a 70% increase in MPG in my current car.)
Thanks!
That carb and exhaust and Intake manifold super heated the large chain molecules to make it vaporize plus on the Model T(not all) the fuel is all adjustable by finding the sweet spot. The fuel system was made by Holley and was called a "Holley Hot Spot", also"Stromberg Hot Spot" back then the fuel was real and not additives and cheap alcohol junk fuel like we have today (mostly very light chain molecules that boil at 130 degrees up to about 415 like Ethyl used to be back in the 60s for High comp cars.. With modern fuel the way its been cracked it simply doesnt have the BTUs old school fuel was. The days of the 200 MPG carb are gone unless you want to crack some oil and make it larger chains and use lots of heat to vaporize it, which works if you have the equipment to distil ir.. thanks
Did you not know that vapour carburetors were one of the standard ways to fuel a petrol engine before the venturi type carburetor was invented?
Thanks for commenting on this!
Engine back-firing is why vapors are dangerous.
@Maxon Dimber unless it's a rotary ;)
@Maxon Dimber EXCEPT direct injection into the cylinder allows the intake valves to get loaded with crud causing other problems.
Any chemistry major can tell you that this will be true, it's called activation energy, combustion is a chemical reaction, some chemical reactions have a higher activation energy than others, for example burning diesel requires more energy than gasoline, and gasoline vapor, requires less energy. By adding a - bong - err i mean vapor inducer to the intake you are lowering the activation energy of the fuel mixture by changing the state of the fuel, however, the small efficiency increase is not worth the risks involved with adding air, or heat to a tank of gasoline on a passenger vehicle. The claims of >10% more efficiency are simply B.S. however, as the activation energy of gasoline is
The secret is heat. If you vaporize gas at it's vaporizing temp (around 500 degrees) you will notice a large boost in fuel economy. The first patent was in 1932 by Charles Pogue for his 200 mpg carb on a Flathead Ford (look it up). It worked but was dangerous as the gasoline is near it's critical flash point. The carb looks like a miniature refinery sitting on the engine and used the exhaust to heat the gas to high temps.
The best carb to use is one of the propane conversion carbs as they work well with vapor. The propane is run through a heater unit before the vapor is introduced to the carb, the heater unit is heated by the engine coolant at 180 to 190 degrees. Propane is very cold and needs to be warmed up. The heat units from the 60's through 70's were the best because they were bigger and had a larger heating area for the vapor and works well with alcohol. With all that said the perfect fuel to vaporize at a low temp is alcohol (it vaporizes at 173 degrees) ethanol to be exact and around 70 proof seems to work as well or better than 100 octane leaded fuel! If you run your lawnmower engines on rubbing alcohol 70 proof you will be amazed at how well the engine will run and after a couple tanks of alcohol the inside of your engine will be as clean as new and stay that way. Run synthetic oil and the engine will last forever!
Vaporize with heat but be careful. Grain alcohol (ethanol, rubbing alcohol etc) is safer because you can put out an alcohol fire with water as it dilutes the alcohol and the fire goes out quickly. Vaporizing alcohol with 180 degrees is a lot safer than 500 degrees. Back in the 70's when OPEC screwed everyone with the phony gas shortage I experimented with alcohol fuel and found it to work extremely well. I could purchase 55 gallon drums of 190 proof ethanol and dilute it to 70 proof and go out and burn some rubber in my 68 Fairlane 390 GT.
I ran everything from my lawnmower, several cars and pickups and a gas powered GM bus that ran on propane which was an easy conversion for alcohol vaporization. Alcohol won't start cold and needs some help. That's easy, just rig up a small propane cylinder for torches or camp stoves and give the engine a couple shots with a tickler valve and it will start up, stumble for a couple of seconds then it will run great. Adjust the carb for higher fuel flow.
Have fun
Thank you!
there are a lot of causes why gas isn't vaporized by a heat plate nowadays. just two of them:
1) the vaporization of the gas inside the intake system is urgently needed for cooling the intake valve and the piston.
2) the efficiency of an engine drops if the intake mixture is warm. intake has to be as cool as possible.
The coleman stove style carb has been researched. problems with this system are obvious to anyone that has ever gone camping. The venturi type carb uses manifold pressure differential to accomplish the same vaporization as the heat carb. This can be demonstrated through Boyle's Law and Charles Law (Combined Gas Law?).
I love a good conspiracy rant. Did you ever hear the one about: "The whole Studebaker factory is being stored in a secret government warehouse somewhere in Nevada"? As I recall it had something to do with a 200 MPG heat carb.
I've found an understanding of basic Physics makes me more resistive to wild claims and the like.
As for the oil embargo: It was their oil. It was in their country. They chose not to sell to us. What were we supposed to do? Send in the troops?
How about you use the Heat of the motor itself (to get it at least closer to the temperature) so that the economy is the same at the beginning but when the motor gets warm the fuel economy is better?
The engine temp is not hot enough unless you use alcohol. Doesn't work with gas. Some guys experimented with metal coils wrapped around the exhaust manifolds and run the gas through them and it actually helped. I know a guy that actually got over 90 MPG on a V-8 engine with this setup. After a couple of small fires he determined it was dangerous the way he did it but he proved it would work.
I actually saw this happen many years ago with a Ford PU with a 351 engine. It was converted to run on Duel fuel, Propane or Gasoline, the customer came in with a very rough idling engine on Propane. We turned off the propane and it started idling smoothly, the system used a shut off solenoid to stop gasoline flow. We checked it by taking the Gas line going into the carburetor off and there was no fuel flow into the Carb. We then to double check removed the Propane vapour hose going into the Propane mixer, the engine still ran, a good mystery to solve.
We then thought of what could be any other fuel source and pulled the PCV valve from the valve cover, the engine quit. Pulling the oil dipstick revealed a very overfull crankcase. The diaphragm had burst in the mechanical fuel pump ran from the camshaft so gasoline was pumping into the crankcase and evaporating. New fuel pump and an oil change and the Mystery was solved.
Thanks for sharing.
I love this guy,s test,s! He makes YOU feel like you graduated from ITT! This is a very humble and talented MAN !
Thank you.
thats a good way to survive without a carb in emergencys
Yes! This is the smartest comment on here. Carburetor jets are always plugged and you just need to mow? HANDLED.
@@jimmio3727 yes... no carb? Make a fuel air bomb! 👍
I have to agree, looking at it, the purpose of a carb or injector is to make fuel vapor mixed at a decent ration( I wouldn't always say good) this is probably making a very rich fuel ratio(not sure I haven't tried it yet) but never the less, it will get your lawn mowed or your clunker down the trail if the carb clogs.
Yeah pretty much he made his carburetor. Which is why I knew ahead of time you can run an engine on vapors. That's what the carburetor in a regular engine DOES - vaporize the fuel and mix it with the air.
Is it going to use less fuel? No, the engine as delivered from the factory *already has* a carburetor, so it's ALWAYS been running on vapor.
@Robert Andrews You are correct it could be a break through other than fuel is upper cylinder lubricant and when an engine runs lean for a long time the wear and tear is to much for the (wear) rings to handle and also a engine needs enough fuel up top to keep it cool or again the rings and hardened valve seats can fail
I tend to agree with your findings... just one thing, did you connect the blow-by pipe with your jar? Keep in mind that the excess fumes get circulated back into the system for a reason.
This is nothing when i was a kid mowers didn't even use gas they ran on sweat 100% fuel efficient--- like your videos though
lol. Nice!
Mr X reel mowers area chore
I miss your engine Testing videos! Always coming back watching them! Thank you!
I just want to throw this out there for everyone. A gasoline engine runs off of vapor. That is the reason a fuel injector works better spraying the fine atomized mist vs a solid stream. The surface area of the mist allows the liquid to become a vapor which is combustible. A carb works on the same principle of turning the liquid into a gas.
Engines run off of vapor so the end result in run time between vapor and "liquid" is to be expected.
The point of this is to ensure all fuel entering cylinder is a vapor. No droplets to fail to burn. It's an attempt to improve the carburetor.
Brandon FI works better because pressurized fuel is sprayed thru an orfice, atomizing fuel entering the manifold. Carbed fuel splashes around in a float bowl waiting for a sufficient amount of vacuum to puke it into the manifold. Although, most definitely more atomized, injected fuel is raw, not vapor. The carb mixes fuel and air together in an emulsion. And finally, gas vapor, also, can get too rich or lean. The test motor ran on both setups, but without an O2 sensor and an air/fuel ratio gage, we can't say whether both setups were stociometeric (sp), run time is affected.
Brandon Morrissey
Mist is not vapor, no matter how small the droplets are.
Funny enough, most carbs vaporize fuel better than fuel injection, what with them usually being further from the intake valve and the high velocity you get through the throat of the carburetor. If your float is set too high, which can result in fuel actually dripping into the carb instead of flowing in a metered trickle, then you'll get liquid fuel into the cylinder.
The gains from fuel injection are almost entirely due to more accurate and more responsive metering. Generally, you're stuck with fixed metering jet sizes in a carb for mid and wide open throttle, while the idle is usually adjustable (but still effectively fixed, as it's "set and forget".) With EFI, you can control the metering through both injector on time and fuel pressure simultaneously.
"Mist is not vapor, no matter how small the droplets are."
The mist vaporizes in the combustion chamber before ignition. Cold engines need to run slightly richer mixture because the fuel isn't vaporizing as well.
Your valve on the hose is not adjusting the air/fuel ratio into the carburetor. It’s only controlling the air flow. The air/fuel ratio is purely based on the amount of fuel able to evaporate in the container while you’re sucking the air through it.
If you want to start researching improved fuel economy, you have to start adjusting the air/fuel ratio to perfect the engines efficiency. The engine was getting so much vapor it wouldn’t run until you closed the valve most of the way.
Add a second valve taking air from the atmosphere into the same line. Then you can adjust ratios by manipulating the 2 valves.
Thank you!
Great idea
i suspect the color change was at least partially from the ethanol in gas absorbing water from the air
This makes sense. Thanks for commenting!
That is exactly what it is.
I imagine the air-chilled fuel condenses quite a bit of water. Also makes a decent air filter
Wouldn't it be such a better place for our engines if we could just put our corn back into corn flakes where it belongs and out of our gas tanks?
I still want to smack the person what came up with the great idea of using a food crop for fuel. Not only does it decrease the overall efficiency of our engines (Ethanol has less potential energy than gasoline) but it decimates the storage life of fuel, gums up parts and absolutely destroys the carbs on small equipment.
If you want to know who, look up the book "alcohol can be a gas" though personally, Ethanol does have it's uses, for example it has been proven that fuels high in ethanol actually result in less pollution from the tail pipe (for example, e85 is a very clean burning fuel compared to E0) but the difference with E0 is, is it's much more energy dense, leading to higher MPG's, which is why I prefer to run E0 when I can
I did that on a 4 cylinder motor. Removed the cab. Installed a 2'' ball valve and a 1'' ball valve past the 2'' for air adjustment. I put gas ,old oil,water in the tub. ran the vapors with a 2'' hose. Had a 1'' hose to feed air in to bubble the mix. It ate it all. Ran great.
Thanks for sharing.
One thing for sure, I have learned to service my own lawnmower by watching PF, thank you!
That is awesome!
Excellent video. You really need to monitor the RPM & assure the same load to tell. Too hard to put a consistent practical load on a mower. Try it on a small generator with a constant electrical load like maybe heating elements of 1/3 to 1/2 the rated continuous wattage capacity. Monitor the RPM and load (with a kill-a-watt) meter to assure the same load. Also, the high agitation in the bottle suggest that gas droplets instead of actual vapor may be getting sucked into the air stream. Maybe a felt baffle (as thick as the suction can tolerate) some distance above the liquid level (especially when agitated) and below the suction line would condense liquid droplets and allow only vapor through. Thanks for your time & effort to do what most of us only wish we could try.
All great points and thanks for commenting.
The blade is the load
Do you really think heating gasoline is a good idea?
Excellent points!
Dondre who said anything about heating gasoline? Reread the comment.
I had to laugh when I saw this. 30+ years ago I did extensive testing of vapor fuel using a large generator… slow running (1800) with a fixed load. I used a heating system to vaporize the fuel as it exited my vaporizer (fed by a pump). The reason for this was to vaporize ALL the gas, not just the lighter components as you did. With full control of mixture, and timing, I could see zero significant difference. This makes sense, because LIQUID DOESN’T BURN. It must be vaporized to burn. Carburetors meter the fuel into the air stream where most of it becomes vapor before entering the cylinder, where the heat of combustion vaporizes the rest….. Gas engines do run on vapor. I also ran a Ford V8 on diesel vapor, waste oil vapor, vaporized plastic, vaporized rubber, and vaporized wood. The latter was used during WW2 in Europe to power cars, trucks, and buses when gas became scarce. Called “gasogens”. Diesel engines also run on vapor. The fine droplets are vaporized by the very high temps from high compression. Miracle carbs like the famous Pogue never yielded the claimed results….. just a scam. I can and will say that to anybody because I played with it extensively, pursuing every lead. BOGUS!!
I remember in the early 1980's, the classified section of the Enquirer newspaper had several advertisements for "Secrets of the 200mpg carburetor" - which proved to be patent (?) drawings for the Pogue carb and the Fish carb a few of which were produced in the 1950's. One web site says they made and sold 125,000 of the Fish which supposedly delivered 20-30% better mileage than a conventional carb. Conspiracy theories held that Fish was driven out of business by big oil. Before my time anyway.
@@ilblues The Fish carb was manufactured for awhile…..A friend of mine had one, and we put it on several vehicles. There was nothing remarkable about it. It had a unique fuel metering system involving a tapered slot and an arm with an orifice that served as a jet. As you opened the throttle, the orifice followed the slot (inside the float bowl) as I recollect. The arm had a fuel passage inside it and connected to the throttle shaft, which if I remember correctly was hollow and drilled with multiple holes which delivered the fuel into the air stream. It was not a particularly good carburetor…..The ordinary Motorcraft and Rochester 2 barrel carbs worked better. I once saw a Pogue hanging on the wall in a neighbor’s shop…. In his 70’s at the time, he made wild claims about a Dodge Polara that supposedly made 200 mpg with it…. But he hung it on the wall when the car wore out and never used it………. Who wouldn’t have done the same ;-). You should have heard his UFO stories….. He watched them all the time supposedly. I have to admit that I once saw one and watched it through my 10X50s from an estimated 1.5 miles off for about 10 min. (1979). I was in an old IH pickup in the pine hills on a huge Eastern Montana ranch. I saw enough detail that I have no doubt these many years later what I was looking at.
@@stonetoolcompany3649 Being a Puget Sound native, I'm more fascinated with Bigfoot. When we finally capture one, I'm certain his UFO won't be far and that will solve both mysteries! They're really Wookies, you know. Seriously, I've never actually seen either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Recent UFO declassifications have been intriguing.
You could mount your fuel vaporiser directly onto the engine's intake manifold. It would need a name ... how about calling it a "carburettor" ? Heating will not vapourise the fuel any more, but will stop the possibility of ice formation in cold weather while also reducing the power output of the engine as the vapour has a lower molecular weight (less fuel/air mix per intake stroke).
@@ilblues coast to coast radio show talks about both a lot of, used to at least, esp from the creator of the show ,Art Bell, rip.
It'd be great to see the results you get if you were to recycle the exhaust through a cooling coil and then into your fuel container replacing the air intake air with the exhaust. You may be surprised by the efficiency increase.
Thanks for the suggestion.
That's what a EGR system does on a vehicle lol. So makes sense
Doesn’t egr cost reduced efficiency at the effect of reduced emissions? Tdi egr delete adds 5mpg on my car
@@DaileyandrewEGR actually improves part load fuel economy by forcing you to open the throttle a bit further for a given engine load, decreasing throttling losses at part-load cruise. It's like a poor man's cylinder deactivation.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I’ve only heard of EGR deletes improving mpg
I mean isn't fuel somewhat vaporized as it's sent into the cylinder(atomized) to mix with the air properly?
i was alway told that its called a gas pedle because the fule is turned in a gas as it is sucked into the cumbstion chamber thats in a car though not sure about a lawnmoer he seams to think it runs on the liquid and he got hundreds of people asking him to do it so geussing we are worg at least on some levle
atomized is the same as a mist. Vapor is particles suspended in air. The contraption he came up with ATOMIZED the fuel. In short, the gas is misted normally, the contraption caused a mist, thats how gas usually works.. he didnt really do anything novel here hahaha
@@plaidjoker1321 I've heard both terms used in relation to fuel delivery systems. I was trying to politely make the point that this isn't anything novel that he's doing, anyone who's ever played the E game knows you can run on vapors. Typically the reason it's avoided is due to sediment and other things collecting at the bottom of a fuel tank that can clog up a fuel pump, fuel filter, etc especially if such things are located IN the fuel tank. It is interesting to see what happens to the fuel if you're trying to deliver it as a vapor first rather than deliver it as a liquid and using injectors to turn it into mist. I have more knowledge in automotive engines than small engines. Most of my small engine knowledge is on m17 water pumps in the army which were carburated (real word, idk, is now), so forgive any gaps in knowledge.
@@JordonPatrickMears11211988 So i think we're agreeing lol
@@plaidjoker1321 I'd go as far as saying we ARE agreeing, lmao. I was just trying to elaborate on my original statement a bit more. Add some more detail for other readers/viewers.
The whole "all engines run on vapors" thing is only part of the story. A huge factor in liquid fueled engines is that the fuel droplets have an evaporative cooling effect on the combustion chamber. Running a gasoline engine too lean can cause the combustion chambers to overheat and burn the engine up. On the same note if you run it lean enough you will start dropping the temperature and lose power. We see this in natural gas and propane engines. You can run a gaseous fueled engine as lean as you want until it stalls, and the temperature drops with it..
Hangfire he ran it excessively. Plus it's an air cooled low rpm motor. All his readings were normal temps
yeah but that's why the water mist systems exist, to solve that problem. The idea is to add water mist to the air mixture to then cool the lean air/fuel mixture which should burn hotter and more efficient, which then gets instantly cooled to about 100ºC by the water boiling and expanding 16 times, hence boosting the compresion. The only downside is that you have to run the engine with less or no water and rich for say 5 mins before turning it off to avoid rusting it.
Maybe if they made some parts of stainless steel or titanium (piston rings, valves, etc) for the weight and streght sensitive parts, it could work but the problem is people just dont care for the car, not understand such a simple proceedure, even if it could be automated by the computer. Hence no car manufacturer implements it. Plus you need distiled water or distiled mixed with alcohol for the mister so another thing to refill aside from the fuel.
Remember the volkswagen fiasco? it was because they needed to refill the urea for the filters, and people werent gonna do it so although it worked, they knew people were too stupid to actually refill the urea for the filter.
yall are nuts.. you 3 should get a hotel room..all engines and fires run on vaporized fuels..including wood, coal and even aluminum
exactly right. I've seen a bunch of these videos and every time I have to do a faceplam.
no
Carbureted engines do this already. The carb atomizes the fuel, then when the fuel gets into the warm engine and is exposed to the lower pressure, it vaporizes.
He made a big carburetor
@@gjamaica3167 It looks like it has about the same capacity. Size is irrelevant here. Ultimately gas engines all burn vapor. The only difference is where the fuel becomes vapor. Liquid gasoline won't burn. It is pretty volatile, (meaning it evaporates fairly quickly without high temperatures,) so the vapor in sufficient concentration will burn easily. The remarkable thing about this video is that such a crude vaporizer actually seems to work pretty well!
Tom Sparks right, that’s big difference between highway miles and local.
@@tomsparks3259 It vaporized right after the injector sprayed?
Yah, I was thinking the same thing when i read this title. WTF?
Next Episode: How I avoided being Epstien'd by BP.
This is great lmao I’m dying over here
Nah, they aren't worried about a %10 loss...Hook a HHO generator up to that sucker, and see what happens!
and SHELL cause theyve done it before lol. There was a guy that got an engine to run off of water ie hydrogen and he dissapeared
@@ItalianMetalHED That guy was a fraud. His engine did NOT run off of water.
@@ItalianMetalHED ya he's selling bottled water in Siberia Russia 🇷🇺
I've been watching a lot of these are appreciate the effort you've put into them.
About this one, what the majority don't understand is gasoline as a liquid is not even flammable. The carb venturi or the injection system atomizes the gas to where there will be enough vapor by the time the spark plug goes off. I experimented quite a bit in my youth with that knowledge. One of them was to use exhaust pipe (made a 'S' shape and welded plates to mount) to mount my carb 2 feet away from the engine to give the gas more time to evaporate. That alone increased the average mileage in that 72 Plymouth from 17 to 24 mpg. But I had a problem with a certain outside temp and humidity, it would cause ice crystals to form so I had to try and heat the tube. It helped, but I finally gave up since I needed a machine shop to make things I really needed to continue.
The problem you had with your mower setup is a fixed amount of air traveling thru the liquid. Ideally you need a separate way to vaporize the gas and have a way to control the vapor/air mixture before you get to the throttle. If a fuel injection type system could inject the proper amount of vapor instead of raw gas, it could be the best mileage possible. The problem is heating gas to vaporize would be dangerous, so impractical at this stage. But this is the reason economy figures have been rising. Carbs have the be the most inefficient method possible as they are just dumping raw gas into the intake.
Again, thanks for all the time you spend making the wonderful videos!
You are welcome
Project farm, i agree with a comment I read below about regulating air flow into the container to achieve an a/f ratio. However a simple voltage meter and an O2 sensor threaded into the muffler reading voltage 0-1v DC would show this balance. I would love to see this in future video.
Hi Todd, I absolutely love your videos! Have you ever considered trying to get an engine running on wood gas using a gasifier? I have seen a few people pull it off on UA-cam in the past, and would love to see how you would go about doing it! If I recall correctly, the U.S. Government released documentation on how to make a gasifier and run an engine on wood gas in an emergency situation. Definitely worth looking in to if you have the time!
Thanks! Thanks for the suggestion.
@@ProjectFarm I concur on this one. I would love to see you work with a wood gasifier. But my request goes above that. This is an old WWII or before technology that I think someone could improve modern day. I want to see you build this and improve it to whatever perfection you can reach. There is FEMA documentation on a wood gasifier. But there are also many videos on youtube about it. I've got a couple to get you started here below. They're some of the better postings I've found. Cant wait to see you do this idea!
My post on colin furze gasifier video
The cyclone filter seems to be extremely helpful in a wood gasifier for removing junk. Also you need to cool the gas way down, this cleans the gas more and makes it denser. Also your final filter medium doesn't seem to be dense enough. Usually people use like hamster bedding or hay packed in to catch the rest of the particles. The heat in this causes 20% H2, 20%CO, 5%CH4, and the rest nitrogen. You do need dry wood to best do this and pellets are a common fuel. Some good areas to find information on these devices are these videos, "Running Your Engine on Wood-Gas with Wayne Keith!", "Wood Gas Part 2: Extras and In-Depth Info", and "amazing homemade gasifier uses wood pellets to run generator -- renewable alternative energy video". One last place to get a lot of good information about these is from the United States FEMA-Gasifier-Plans.
Red Green would be proud you used duct tape.
Very interesting. I was very skeptical as well. I'm glad I have the answer now so thanks!
Thanks for the positive comment.
Project Farm Hey thanks for the reply. It's very cool to know that you take the time to read the viewers comments. The videos are great and a lot of fun to watch. I know a lot of us out there wish we were able to test some of the things that you actually do. Hope everything continues to go well!
There was some research about using ultrasound to atomize gasoline more evenly and completely.
same outcome
I think the goal is vaporization. Heat has been used to accomplish this.
Nobody wants to microwave gasoline. Sorry.
Yes, decades ago. Was snake oil then and still is.
@@Daniel-59 it isn't snake oil. And the whole snake oil phrase has merit.
Lard from meat is quite useful. Especially in survival situations.
Ultrasound vaporization is used extensively with liquids. Combustible ones as well.
Fact remains, though. No one wants to microwave combustible liquids. It's dangerous.
Most people have problems putting an electric liquid pump in gas tanks which very clearly have electricity terminals connecting to them. Especially when they think about those terminals or wires arching in some fashion and exploding the fuel tank.
I'm surprised you did not wear protective gear in case of an explosion. Also a splash plate in the container to keep fuel from splashing up and accidently getting splashed up to the intake port would have been a better design as well as using an accurate measuring device for the fuel. I also noticed you could not throttle down to an idle so maybe a better control on the gas line.
Baffles. Simular to what's used in a moonshine column. Minus the caps.
He wanted to keep it simple as a pure Demo.
If you start adding splash plates etc folk will think there's hidden gadgetry powering the engine.
No need for accurate fuel measuring as the consumption difference was not significant enough
common sense is his protective gear
I know this is an old video, but I would love to see a revisit with a wideband O2 sensor and gauge in the exhaust and see how close to stoich the mix is.
Exactly what I was thinking. In order to get great gas mileage you need to lean it out. But you can't do that under load. That's a light cruise situation. Anyways you go too lean and things melt. You would need an exhaust gas temperature sensor to make sure you are safe. I was skeptical it would even work myself....
An engine doesn't burn liquid fuel. Liquid fuel doesn't burn. Just the vapors. It's just a matter of where the fuel is vaporized, at the fuel injector, the carburetor, or outside the engine in a a clear jar.
You have to heat the fuel or use a special energizing process like the GEET, or add HHO mixed with air and water (and possibly nitrogen compounds which result from the electrolysis if you use salt as an electrolyte).
Pretty awesome! Did the leftover gas stay cloudy?
Gasoline is hydrophilic. It will pull moisture out of the air. So yes, it stays cloudy. It's a bit of a problem, the fuel will get more and more diluted from picking up moisture from the air. The main issue is some of the water will settle back out after sitting, especially if the fuel has ethanol in it. Adding a desiccant to the bubbler will delay the issue so you have to dump the bubbler less frequently.
Justin Ervin or a tablet of drygas in the bottom?
5:38 even with his face out of frame you can feel how surprised he is
You ARE THE F---'N MAN!!!! Much Love from Rochester NY. So appreciate every single comparison that you've done. You are exceptionally unbiased, honest and and straight to the FACTS...Please keep up the amazing work, we so enjoy all of your videos!!!!!
Thanks, will do!
I have always wanted to see someone who was unbiased test the Flex Seal/Flex tape because you see it on TV with all the neat stuff that can do and then if you go to like carnivals and stuff they have people setup that demonstrate it but they're usually somebody with that company so they will make it work to their advantage somehow I would like to see someone like you test it and every way that you can think of possible and I would also like to add that I thoroughly love your videos and I've lost every one of them and you're awesome please keep doing what you do
Go to johntrons youtube channel and he recently made a video on the whole flex tape- seal line
ive used flex seal and it is not a bad product ive coated leaking pipes and have had no problems
I own a pool service business and if I can't make a repair that day I'll hit it with flex seal and then get to it later that weak. Pretty decent product
www.wmcactionnews5.com/clip/13773529/flex-tape-andy-will-it-work
Veeight Dev awesome thanks
The fuel that was left in the jar, try running it in the mower, to see if it is any good. in the mowers fuel tank.
Probably not since it's full of water
@@supernoodles908 Why would it be full of water?
@@paulh2981 As the air is bubbled through the fuel the moisture from the air will go into the fuel. Fuel is hydroscopic. That's why the fuel is cloudy at the end
@@supernoodles908 Sorry if this is a dumb question but would the water separate out if left to settle? Would it freeze out?
My body: „You REALLY should go to sleep now!!!“
My eyes to my brain: ENGINES RUNNING ON VAPORS
My brain to my fingers:“Welllllllllll, let‘s give it a try......“
lol. Nice!
How did you go?
Exactly
@Rich B could not have said it!!
@Rich B try what? what you talking about willis
Heat the fuel to optimal vaporizer temps.
Very cool to see this method work.
Thanks.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I even watch the adds in their entirety to ensure max pay from the UA-cam algorithm. It sucks but it's worth it for these great videos.
Thanks so much!
I didn't know it made a difference
@@jimbojones8601
It doesn’t.
To maximize the rewards you have to buy things
@@UnfinishedProjectDartSport It does. I'm monetized, in 2021, are you?
Another great video! Love your Channel, you have a great personality. Keep up the awesome work!!
Thank you!
Dear {small] c. if you cant understand than don't watch PROJECT FARM channel.
Thanks for another great video. Really appreciate the time and effort you put into these.
Smokey Yunick proved many decades ago that a metering device is necessary to reach the proper stociometric ratio of between 12 and 14 to 1. [the higher # being air.] and this would be necessary with any engine using gasoline, whether vaporised or atomized. A ratio of approx 12 to 1 is needed for a heavy load and approx 14 to 1 i is used in a steady state, no load , coasting mode. Engineers do this kind of work everyday. Ratios might vary using other gaseous fuels such as propane.
You are absolutely correct. Thank you.
You need to "T" in an extra air valve so you can adjust fuel vapor and air mixture. We ran on waste oil with gasoline, diesel + gasoline, water + gasoline, virtually any ratio as long as the gasoline is being vaporized it will run. A good way to get rid of waste/dirty fuel. :-)
Thank you for the feedback
Question, when you did water + gas in the vaporizer, did the water get vaporized?
@@PLANETXLABS Possibly a small amount will be carried over with the fuel. Didn't seem to affect the performance though.
i wished he would have tried different fuels. would it have run on alcohol...particularly ethanol? diesel by itself? anyone know?
Great video. Without knowing the idle speed of each set up it's hard to draw a conclusion about efficiency.
Loved the video and subbed 👍
Thanks! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
Doesn't a carburetor make vapor out of fuel and air?
Yes, it makes a spray mist, which becomes a vapor upon entering the combustion chamber. More recent videos show this process in a see through cylinder head with a high speed camera.
But all of that unburnt fuel that can't convert fast enough becomes the black carbon that screws our bearings, rings and oiling systems. If you run clean your oil lasts longer and you don't have carbon scoring the inside of your engine so your parts last longer. The fresh oil change that I did 5 years ago is still in my car that I show this tech off with. Pull the dipstick and you still see the color of the oil. It's not black!
Yep, how did we ever get along before. Gas motors need a mix of about 14:1 for peak power and heat control. Wonder how much horse power the motor makes this way, bet its way below rated output.
Joe Cos maybe, maybe not... It's kinda like running nitro methane BECAUSE the fuel is oxidized, but w/o a Dyno test and/or some type of regulator to get a better fuel/air measurements???? Who the hell knows.
Who the hell knows. Well the people that designed the motors for one.
Fact: Its all about BTU content of fuel and how much you can run thru a motor over a given time period. Supercharging is one way to up the BTU's pushed thru a motor or turbo charging.
Fact: Fuel is vaporized not oxidized. Oxidation changes a given property of a substance, like steel rusting. Fuel in a motor does not go thru this process it is simply vaporized. Same for every liquid fueled motor.
You can call me a fool but there are hard and fast principles that don't change in how motors function here. BTU content of fuel is one of them. Look up the different fuel types and you will see that diesel fuel and gasoline are not the same BTU content. This is clearly shown in how the engines that use different fuels produce horsepower. Given an engine size and how its aspirated proves this out. Diesel motors are clearly the top when you calculate H.P. and torque, BTU content is the variable. The lawnmower runs but it won't give its full HP rating without the correct fuel to air ratio, it just can't. So yes, who the hell knows? People that have been designing motors for well over 120 years. No need to be foul with your comments John, this is just the way that the laws of thermodynamics works and will always work.
I'm wonder what the air fuel ratio is with the carburettor and the vaporizer would have been good if you put an O2 sensor on the exhaust to get the readings and then tune the carburettor to have the same O2 readings as a vaporizer and see if you get the same fuel economy
You will always get the same fuel economy I would think within reason, it takes 14.7:1 to make it happy. 14.7:1 is the same if it's done with a carb or this vapor method. However the discussion of there being no waste I could see that giving you a improvement in economy but I don't think waste is substantial on modern engines, the emissions improvement if real could be a big deal. Even though man-made global warming is fake. Lol
+noahjames231 - You will still get NOx, and you will get CO if the mix ratio is imperfect, which it will surely be because of the difficulty of metering the fuel vapor.
duckslayer92 14.7:1 is the MASS, not volume.
This demonstration is key for 2 reasons: to show how little gasoline it takes to run an engine, and to dive some insight into just how much “air” an engine pumps
Gregory Kusiak How ever isn't BTU's where the power comes from? Won't you still need to put in the same about of energy regardless??
duckslayer92 as I understand it, BTU is a measure of heat energy; BTU/hr is measure of energy consumed by work. Lower is more efficient as far as engines go, and given the runtime difference between the vaporizer and carburetor, I’d estimate a minimum 10% improvement in efficiency. Over time, that 10% or more could really add up. (Remember, the carb’d engine burned everything in the tank- if that was the benchmark rather than the vaporizer, there would be the ethanol left over, meaning a difference in volume consumed in favour of the vaporizer setup- lower btu’s consumed from less volume over slightly more time, or work done in this static test)
at the least, if you were on a desert island and found an outboard with no carb on it, youd have a way to make it work! great video
put fuel in mouth
spit fuel into intake
?????
power
only if someone tests that it works....
Idk about that. Prolly still need a carb
I have done something similar on a chevy geo sprint a few years ago. I used much less vapor than you did here. Testing at 60 mph the car went from 38 mpg to over 70 mpg every time I checked it. I went to the same gas pump every time and set on the slowest setting and when it kicked off I did my calculations from there. I'm quite sure there is another 20-30 mpg more to be had if I had some funding and a couple engineers to work with me....
I've been watching project farm for a few months now and find it extremely fascinating. Thanks for the continuous hard interesting work you put into those projects. "And may it continue. 👍 Matt from Scotland.
Thank you!
@@ProjectFarm Yes you do a great job with your projects! Keep it up!!!
I'm thinking the fuel change color in the container because you were filtering the air with the fuel you would probably want your intake air to have a filter on it if you were to do this full-time that's awesome
Great point and thanks for the positive comment!
Jeff Palmer im thinking since ethanol likes to bond with water. All that air bubbling in left you with a watery fuel mixture in the jar at the end.
More likely is that the lighter hydrocarbons were pulled into the vapor leaving the heavier hydrocarbons in the jar.
Agree with 2k4_8, it'll be the heavier fractions and the additives that don't vapourise.
Fuel changed color due to water condensation. When the fuel evaporates, it absorbs heat and cool the surrounding. Water vapour in the air condensed and mixed with the fuel thereby causing the change in color of the fuel.
I thought you had to also warm the gasoline because as it evaporates it cools making it hard to continue evaporating.
Great point.
Smokey Yunic did something like this way back when. Heating the fuel till it vaporized then run it through the engine.
Sonic vibration does almost as well.
@bill miller I'd much recommend this over heating.
I am very surpised! Great experiment! Thanks again for your time and sharing!
You're one of a handful of channels that I always make sure to check regularly for new videos to watch but I rarely comment. This video is far from being my favourite of yours but I thought I'd give your algorithm a little boost while it's in my head 🤣
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
I love the electrical conduit :)
I'm a big fan of using it for a variety of tasks - both metal and pvc conduit.
Another newfound fav (given current lumber prices) - treated fence pickets. I've used at least 50 for recent (non-structural) projects that had nothing to do with fencing, and they're a fraction of PT framing lumber.
Curtain rod all day long.
And now PVC conduit is 4 times the price it was 6 months ago.
Shell Oil engineers where testing vapor engines, it’s well documented, your video makes me wonder if they were primarily interested in reducing smog because of the cleaner burn when running on fumes.
It looks like the primary advantage to running on fumes per your testing, is reduced exhaust emissions, reduced smog. This is of great importance because less smog is a big plus.
My girlfriend and I are designing a vapor fuel assist system for our car, we are interested in reducing smog. Smokey Yunick achieved great success improving horse power and reducing smog with a vapor fuel system. He was also using a turbo which act as a one way check valve for the vapors.
Bill Kendrick’s here on UA-cam uses a different approach to running on vapors. And he notes to have achieved significant improvements in horse power, and reduced exhaust emissions as well as reduced engine temperature.
I enjoyed reading your post. I hope you achieve great results in designing the vapor fuel assist system.
Thank you!
True Zero Emissions You're one of the few who remembers Smokey Yunick who answered readers' car every month in Popular Science magazine for years, long before they turned up their noses to practical things. Smokey's engine garnered attention from many car companies but he said they complained about meeting emissions standards--I suspect corporate inertia unless evil can be proven. Similarly, no manufacturer of gasoline engines has yet embraced the amazing Steam-O-Lene water injection system which is also for real but requires change in the mind of engine designers and their bosses.
True. And that 2 to 3% rise in efficiency calculates to Billions of dollars. Who loses out with better efficiency and less smog? The Government and big oil. Less gas tax and justification, and less gas consumption.
JRMCNEA His test was way too inaccurate to see an actual change. That 2-3% could be laying on the bottom of that gas tank or could be explained by his inaccurate measurements.
Well in a sense engines DO run on gas vapor, since the carburetor creates gas vapor from liquid gas and mixes it with air, the resulting vapor is feed into the manifold to the combustion chambers. So this sounds like you've turned the gas tank into a carburetor. Actually similar to the setup that runs my propane generator, the liquid propane is converted into a gas (vapor) by the regulator and then fed though a pipe to the engine.
Thanks for commenting on this.
Wrong, carburators and injectors do not make vapor.
propane is turned into a vapor by the evaporator which has hot engine coolant running through it you need to take a closer look at automotive lpg systems i work on them all the time
Rackstar BS
Rackstar, they do, but not how you are thinking of vapor. Vapor, by definition is liquid particles suspended in a gas. In this case its gasoline particles suspended in air. A carb/injector does this through atomization (forcing the liquid through a small opening to allow it to form very small particles). The process in the video creates vapor through forced evaporation. Different roads to the same result: an air/fuel mixture in the form of fuel vapor.
For the curiosity, the need to know, and ingenuity. Excellent !
Thanks!
Where the conspiracy falls apart, is that moving where it turns to vapor or is atomized, from the venturi to the fuel tank, doesn't change the combustion process.
Gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it. All engines run on gas vapors, they don't burn liquid gas, as the gas is atomized upon entering the combustion chamber. This increases surface area to increase vaporization. Liquid gas is very hard to ignite, gas vapor is highly flammable, and very dangerous.
You point out a basic rule of physics that seems to escape most of the fairy dust and unicorn believers.
Some people seem so hell bent on wanting to believe in a miracle ( or conspiracy) they will throw common sense/ fact and logic out the window to fool themselves.
Shelby Seelbach "gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it"....that is assuming that your engine is already 100% efficient and that you cannot reduce wastage any further.
Pixl Rainbow no matter how efficient your motor is, gasoline only contains so much energy, no matter how you extract it. Nothing you said makes anything i said incorrect. No motor even burns gas at 100 percent efficiency. This would require an air to fuel ratio of approximately 15 to 1, which is known as a stoichiometric (not sure of spelling any more) mixture in which all fuel and oxygen are consumed. All motors run slightly rich to allow the unburnt fuel to carry heat away from the combustion chamber. This is why you have all the shit on your car, egr, catalytic converter, etc. to deal with unburnt fuel in the exhaust. Of course this motor will run on gas vapor, all gas burning motors run on gas vapor already.
Shelby Seelbach you just completely misunderstood the phrasing and contradicted yourself lel. I give up
Pixl Rainbow ok?
2-3% fuel economy improvement plus the potential to reduce evaporative emissions looks like a plus-plus to me. I would bet the engine oil would look a lot cleaner at regular oil change intervals.
Thanks for the feedback.
Sue, A petrol engine will only run on an air/fuel ratio of between 12 and 17 to one thus it does not matter if the carburetor is used or if the air is sucked through the petrol as long as you have the right mixture of air/fuel ! THIS experiment was DANGEROUS ! !!!! If that engine backfired [Say the mixture was weaker] Thar glass Cannister would have blown up AND caused a big fire ! Anybody DON't try this ! A Friend of mine almost died doing this! He was in hospital for a long time. The only way to do this is by a fire-catcher [Fine sieve] in the intake pipe. This method WILL NOT save a drop of fuel, carboration or fuel injection is by far better. Please DON'T DO THIS !!!!!!!!!
Probably new for this channel but not for some people. They are very old videos and magazines reviews with the same results. Old technology that still works.
8:00 - Or maybe the fuel had to double as an air-filter!
Great point. Thank you
Also I bet the yellow gas that was left was just the heavier bits of the liquid with all the short chain hydrocarbons having vaporised.....
Kind of the same thing that happens when gas goes stale, you let the volatile bits evaporate and leave the heavier bits behind
I was wondering about putting some water in the jar to act as a potential filter, but since it is running on vapors it shouldn't aspirate dirt as they would be too heavy to make it that far up the jar.
That how some old tractors are but they use oil not gas obviously
Fair play it did