Slant Six Forum
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/

Pogue style carburetor
https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31680		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  stonethk [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:04 am ]
Post subject:  Pogue style carburetor
Anyone heard of this? Supposedly the patents of these types were bought up by large oil corps.
They utilize high heat from the exhaust gases (or other means) to vaporize the incoming gas as opposed to atomizing it. I have read claims upwards of 200 mpg.
Has anyone here done any experimenting with this?
This guy is working on a "vapor exchanger"
Could be something to it.
http://www.fuelvapors.com/best/main_pag ... system.htm
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, the fabled Pogue carburetor...one of many amazing inventions to have been bought up and suppressed by Big Oil. Didn't actually happen, and neither did 200mpg, because in this universe we follow the laws of thermodynamics — one of which is that we cannot get more energy out than we put in.
Author:  stonethk [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:34 am ]
Post subject: 
LOL I must've flown right through your sight path. I guess I better bail out before I bring up HHO/Browns gas or plasma. :) :) :)
In theory it sounds good...200 mpg was the highest I read about... searching around I found others that claim to get at least better mileage than their stock setup.
As well these are claims and for lack of physically seeing something personally. I found the theory interesting.

(edit) I don't think your actually getting more energy than what you put in with this thing -more like refining the use of energy thats available -do we not get hydrogen bombs out of a hydrogen molecule?
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:57 am ]
Post subject: 
That's not to say that there's nothing to the notion of using high heat to vapourise the fuel. Smokey Yunick had some good success with his "Phase I Adiabatic" engine. It used engine (exhaust) heat and a low-pressure turbocharger. He got good power and extremely good fuel economy, but driveability and pinging problems weren't solved. Whether it's a question of the limits of the concept, or just that none of the automakers wanted to cut him a reasonably good deal for it (he writes they all wanted to steal it for a few bucks), we'll likely never know. You may want to find and read the April 1983 Popular Science magazine, which contains a long article about it with test drives, etc. Here is a more-or-less translated Swedish article about the engine (scroll down past the links).
Author:  wjajr [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nothing new here, Ford used an up draft vaporizing carb on the 1927 Model T. It had a thin sheet metal partition between the exhaust manifold and intake manifold. The thin metal would fatigue and crack making drivability problems. It returned mid teens fuel consumption.
Quote:
Vaporizer Plate
The thin tin plate for the vaporizer carb. Made from special tin plate for longer life. USA Part Number Specifics Price
T-6273 1926-27 $2.50 / ea
Author:  slantzilla [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Somewhere I have a bound paper that Boeing put out back in the '80's in which they proved it was possible to construct a carb that would meter fine enough to achieve 200 MPG.

They also plainly stated that it was basically useless because if you run an engine that lean it will:

A. Make no power.
B. Burn itself up within minutes.

In all probability the study was financed by your tax dollars. :oops:
Author:  dusterguy225 [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wasn't there a guy that wrapped a metal fuel line around one of the radiator hoses and then into the carb? I guess it significantly improved his fuel mileage.
Author:  wjajr [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Conspiracy Theorist Department:

DIY self help just a click away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Author:  stonethk [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:57 am ]
Post subject: 
The Smokey Yunick article was interesting, he seems to have been semi- successful, every time I look into these things the story ends with- "well...until the patent this" or "we cant divulge our secret that overcomes whatever" does hamper the credibility a bit.
I do see the high heat being an issue with detonation & lean burning. It still makes sense to me that vaporization could be utilized, and as wjajr says it has with the ford. I guess it would involve just alot more than strictly focusing on carb vaporizing and entail a re engineered motor. I'll say this though-I would believe what somebody (a mad genius) working on something like this in his garage, experimenting & such would have to say over an oil companies statement anyday....now wheres my foil beanie its a full moon....
Author:  Dart270 [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
There's nothing that vaporization can do to increase the available amount of energy in the fuel for combustion. A good EFI system will already extract about as much energy as possible from each drop of fuel.

Lou
Author:  wjajr [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Stonethk:
now wheres my foil beanie its a full moon....
Now Stonethk, don't you feel better with your head swaddled in aluminum? Remember kids, safety first!
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Wasn't there a guy that wrapped a metal fuel line around one of the radiator hoses and then into the carb? I guess it significantly improved his fuel mileage.
...yeah, it did, because as soon as the engine warmed up the car quit running due to severe vapour lock. Preheating the fuel before it gets to the carburetor only makes everything worse, not better.
Author:  wjajr [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dart 270, et. el.,

Novel Thermal Efficiency Increase Idea:
One could generate some steam from the exhaust gasses via a heat exchanger, and send to steam turbine ahla BMW... to crank up the MPG.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

You are correct, the laws of thermal dynamics, and stockeometric mixture rules limit the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. We need to harniss the waste heat dumped from combustion.

Now we could improve fuel economy by reducing hysteresis losses. For you non nurdly types a low hysteresis loss example would be a steel wheel rolling on a steel track, conversely a high hysteresis loss would be if you were pushing a wheel barrow full of rocks with a nearly flat tire in soft sand.

Tire companies have been trying to design a good handling tire, that roll like a steel wheel, and sticks like glue that will roll 100,000 miles. We have been at it for a hundred years, made some progress, but not close to a solution.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Tire-treads ... 178467.php

Low Tech Department:
One can improve economy by over inflating tires, which inversely reduces handling & stopping parameters. We have discussed this one to death here at /6, conclusion: this practice can cause death...
Author:  dusterguy225 [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
...yeah, it did, because as soon as the engine warmed up the car quit running due to severe vapour lock. Preheating the fuel before it gets to the carburetor only makes everything worse, not better.
Ha! Thats what I figured.
Author:  slantzilla [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
There used to be a guy down by my folks who patented and sold fuel warmers. It was a cannister with a coil of copper tubing in it, and it had hot water from the engine flowing through it.

Never saw a car vapor lock with one, but no one was ever able to prove an increase in fuel economy either. He sold a ton of them though because at that time gas had topped the ungodly price of $1.00 a gallon and people thought the world was coming to an end. :shock:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/