Alaska pipeline may shut down...

Refineries too full to accept North Slope production. Pipline slowdown possable.

At midnight on April 11, a 940-foot tanker maneuvered into the dock at the oil terminal in Valdez, Alaska, carrying an unusual cargo for a returning ship. Sloshing in its tanks were more than 12 million gallons of Alaskan crude, at least a quarter of the cargo the ship had carried away from Valdez two weeks earlier.

The Alaskan Explorer had sailed to a Washington refinery but was forced to return to Alaska with 300,000 barrels because the onshore storage tanks were too full to accept it, confirmed Anil Mathur, CEO of the Alaska Tanker Co., which owns the ship.

"Not the normal course of business," said John Kotula, one of the few outsiders privy to the incident because of his position as manager of the state of Alaska's environmental office in Valdez. The tanker's inability to offload its oil underlines a startling reality: Stocks of crude oil in the U.S. have been for the last two years at historic highs, while Americans are using decreasing amounts of its most important product - gasoline.

But federal statistics show another recent development: West Coast refineries are decreasing their production as the domestic demand for gasoline shrinks."If there is so much crude oil around, why is the price of gasoline so high? Why is the price of heating oil so high?" asked Dan Lawn, an environmental consultant who was in the same job as Kotula for decades before he retired in 2005.

The BP refinery in northern Washington had been shut down due to a February fire when the Alaskan Explorer arrived there on April 6. But that doesn't explain the tanker's return to Valdez with a big load of oil. Refinery spokesman Bill Kidd acknowledged that in normal times, the ship would have offloaded the remainder of its cargo at one of three nearby refineries.

An unusual position: Hauling oil to Valdez - a remote town that still supplies a big portion of the West Coast's oil - is carrying the proverbial coal to Newcastle. It is a sign that the American oil industry is in a very un-accustomed place. Government statistics show gasoline isn't selling the way it used to, and on any given day crude oil could be backed up in storage tanks ranging from Valdez to the San Francisco Bay to Long Beach. "Valdez inventories are pretty high. Our inventories are high. Nobody is taking much crude on the West Coast," Kidd said.

So why aren't gasoline prices pushed downward by the forces of supply and demand? "You've keyed into an interesting puzzle, a paradox," said Richard Newell, professor of energy and environmental economics at Duke University and until last year the head of the federal Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Energy Department that tracks industry statistics.

The answer is the power of the world market. "We are tied to the global market, the global price for oil," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. "We cannot secede."
The profitable oil production industry benefits from the fact that it operates within a global market. Fuel conservation in the United States cannot overcome the rising hydrocarbon demand in emerging markets like China and India, Newell said. The price stays up even where more local market pressures might force it down.

Nationally, the average retail price for all grades of gasoline as of last Monday was $3.93 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration - about the same as this time last year but up more than a dollar since April 2010. The highest prices are mostly on the West Coast.

Limited gesture: The Obama administration has proposed better oversight of the commodities market that trades in oil futures, but it is a limited gesture. The markets that set crude prices are different for Scandinavian, West Texas and Arabian oil. "The dynamics in the United States are the opposite of what is occurring at a global level," Newell said. When prices at American gasoline stations go down - or up - it will be for reasons other than U.S. intervention or our improved driving habits, he said.

Lower consumption hasn't brought U.S. prices down or eliminated our dependence on foreign oil. Even though exports are up, the United States still imports around 11 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Consumer demand for gasoline in the U.S. started faltering in 2005 and has been falling "very sharply" since 2007, said Houston-based oil industry analyst Pavel Molchanov of Raymond James & Associates.
"We think (demand) is going to go down in perpetuity," Molchanov said.

People are driving less, because of the economy and the aging of baby boomers, said James Beck, a lead petroleum supply analyst for the Energy Information Administration. Newer cars get better mileage and are replacing the gas-guzzling older ones.

From Ray Metcalfe 907-344-4514 RayinAK@aol.com

So how is it that Parnell's plan will work? Alaskan's need to know.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-awash-in-oil-but-global-demand-drives-prices-3517269.php

Houston Chronicle

U.S. awash in oil, but global demand drives prices

By Eric Nalder

Toward natural gas: Meanwhile, natural gas is cheap. Buses and commercial vehicles are turning away from oil and toward compressed or liquid natural gas, and the petrochemical industry is replacing oil with natural gas for feedstock, Molchanov said.

Gulf Coast and West Coast refineries consequently are making more product than they can sell locally. They are exporting it, notably to Central and South America, in volumes not seen in half a century, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Some East Coast refineries face possible shutdowns because of falling demand and gasoline imports from Europe, Beck said.

"The surging growth in U.S. oil supply has turned North American crude dynamics upside down," industry analysts Cory Garcia and Stacey Hudson said in a March briefing paper distributed by Raymond James & Associates.

Advanced drilling technologies are sucking new crude oil supplies out of landlocked North Dakota, while a pipeline bottleneck at the key hub in Cushing, Okla., has slowed the path to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. The results are a glut of crude oil in the middle of the country, as well as environmental concerns about the drilling techniques. "Clearly, it will take some time (and pipeline capacity) in order to fully clear this supply glut," Garcia and Hudson wrote.

Nearly full tanks: The storage tanks in Valdez were more than 90 percent full the day the Alaskan Explorer arrived with its odd load, said Michelle Egan, spokeswoman for terminal operator Alyeska. She downplayed the significance of those full tanks, noting that they were not so full a few weeks earlier.
But Egan also acknowledged that Alyeska officials begin worrying when the storage tanks at the terminal are over 90 percent full. Such a glut could force a slowdown of oil production on the North Slope. That would reduce flow in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, she said, which can result in increased maintenance problems.
The price of gasoline, meanwhile, is still near four bucks a gallon.

"Both the supply side and demand side in the U.S. are moving in a direction that you would think would underpin falling prices," Newell said. "But the global market rules."

100 miles per gallon...

Article reference: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_vapo.html

Pogue Carburetor, 'Gasoline Vapor Maker' Increase Mileage

Charles Nelson Pogue invented a carburetor that vaporized gasoline, instead of neutralizing it into tiny drops, thus dramatically increasing mileage per gallon of gasoline used. Like so many other inventions, that carburetor did not fit in with the business plans of those in the auto and oil industries. It was bought and shelved, leaving enthusiasts to try and make their own ... if they had the specialized knowledge and tools to do so.


Pogue Carburetor - patent illustration.

A press report from that time reads as follows:

Double-Mixing Carburetor Increases Power and MileageA NEW carburetor that makes mileage of 200 miles per gallon a possibility has been invented by a Winnipeg, Can., engineer. It has been tested and examined by several automotive engineers who claim it is entirely feasible in its action.
C.N. Pogue, the inventor, supplies his carburetor with two mixing chambers instead of one. The gasoline is vaporized in the primary chamber and before being used is sent through another mixing chamber. Here, since it is vapor that burns and not liquid gasoline, the gasoline is further vaporized into a still finer mixture. This insures more power and mileage from usual quantity of liquid gasoline.

It sounds strange that such an invention could be kept off the market and that our cars still guzzle as much gasoline by the mile as they did back then. Pogue developed his carburetors in the 1930s. He took out three patents between 1930 and 1936. All three of these can be found on the excellent site of Rex Research as part of an article titled "Oil Industry Suppressed Plans for 200-mpg Car".
I reported in 2003, that the original blueprints for such a 200 mpg carburetor had been found in England. The story attracted much attention and a huge number of comments - both in favor and against. A lot of people seem to experiment with the idea, so I decided to come back to it.
The fact that carburetors that vaporize gasoline bring more mileage than the old kind and may even be better than direct injection has been confirmed by Frank, who contacted me and offered his own take on Pogue, as well as his plans for a Gasoline Vapor Maker. Frank - it's not his real name - does not want to put his neck out too far, but he does have interesting things to add to the story of the suppressed supercarburetor.

- - -
Pogue Carburetor Plans
(by Frank E.)
Approximately 1970, my dad sent me a copy of the patent for the Pogue carburetor, and asked me to make one. I studied it over very carefully, and after consulting with a mechanist friend, decided that with the current labor and material costs, it would be way too expensive, impractical, and probably not useable for today's engines.
As I studied the plans, I realized that there were several principles involved. The first was that gasoline in the liquid form does not burn. Nor does it explode. Only the vapor that comes from the gasoline will burn. Therefore, to mix raw gasoline with air, and attempt to explode it in an internal combustion engine is a very wasteful, costly, and polluting practice. It also shortens the life of the engine and exhaust system.
The carburetor systems on most, if not all the gasoline powered motor vehicles sold in North America, mix raw gasoline with air shortly before entering the combustion chamber. Enough raw gasoline must be used to insure that enough vapor is produced by the time the spark ignites the mixture so that the oxygen / fuel balance is proper. Too much oxygen will burn the valves. However, most of the raw gasoline is vaporized after the explosion is completely over with and what's left is on the way out through the exhaust system. To appease the EPA, the auto makers put on catalatic converters to burn up all the extra unburned gasoline vapor. Some of the raw gasoline also washes down the cylinder walls, and into the oil to be vaporized by the heat of the oil. The "smog valve" then returns it to the carburetor.
From what I've heard and witnessed over the years, I would estimate that there is enough potential in a gallon of gasoline to propel any full sized car or pickup, with the engines in common use, at least 100 miles, and some as much as 200 miles, all while driving normally. Why then only 8 to 30 miles per gallon? Simply because the auto manufacturers choose to use as much gasoline to power the nation's autos as the public lets them get away with. After all, why endanger the enormous economics wrapped around the petroleum industry.
If you want to get all the power out of your gasoline that you paid so dearly for, then you have to completely vaporize it before it is injected into the carburetor. All devices, if they do not completely vaporize the gasoline, are only swatting half heartedly at the problem.
Note: The preceding account, except for the first paragraph, was rewritten from literature I had written in 1970, or thereabouts. I simply made it more up to date. I must tell you that today's gasoline is much harder to totally vaporize before the combustion. The purpose of that is to thwart carburetors such as Pogue's or mine.


Charles Nelson Pogue - Image credit: Vapor Systems

After my dad had sent me that copy of the Pogue Carburetor patent, and while I was working on my plans, an old retired gentleman with whom I was acquainted, came into my shop, and began to tell me of his experiences. He had been a mechanist somewhere in Minnesota I think, when a French Canadian came to the shop. The Canadian had invented a carburetor, but was having trouble with it vapor locking. The mechanist designed a valve for him that solved the problem. While the mechanist was talking, he kept saying, "Oh, what was his name? Oh, what was his name?" I finally ask him, "Was that valve shaped like a rod split in half?" He looked at me in amazement, "Why, yes! How did you know?" I asked another question, "Was his name Pogue?" Then the old man was really amazed that I knew. I showed him the copy of the patent that I had, and he was really excited. He went over the papers like an excited child.
The old machinist went on to tell me how several months or was it years later he had to take some paperwork up to the main office. He had to go through the conference room where he saw Mr. Pogue in the midst of a bunch of oil company big wigs. He named the wigs, but I forget the names. They were heads of Texaco, Shell, Esso, etc. Some of them had red faces, and Mr. Pogue looked like a trapped rabbit. Of course the machinist was very interested as to what was going on, but he knew he wasn't supposed to be there, so he went on his way.

Later, one of the office boys came down to the shop, and told the machinist, "Hey, you know that Pogue guy that you made that valve for? Well, he sold that carburetor, and plans, lock stock and barrel to the oil company guys. They had a black man carry the whole thing down and put it into the trunk of a Pierce Arrow, and he drove off. That had been the last he had heard or seen of it until I showed him those patent papers.
After I had made my own plans, I confided in George Swartzendruber, an elderly friend of mine. One day he brought over an out of state friend of his who had been visiting. I was a little upset, because George had promised secrecy. However, when this friend had told me his story, I warmed up a bit, and showed him the plans - Pogue's, and also mine. The experience he had told me about was this: His uncle, who had lived in a northern, midwestern state, had been a good friend of Pogue. One day while he was visiting his uncle, Mr. Pogue drove up the farm lane, jumped very excitedly out of his car. "I have it! I have it!" He drained all the gas from his car's tank into a can, then poured 1 gallon back in. Then they drove all over the countryside for 60 miles on that one gallon of gas! The friend said, "Then Pogue went back up to Canada, and we never heard from him again."
I gave the out of state friend a copy of my plans, and he went on back home with it. Later, I heard through George that he had made it, but had been too scared to use exhaust to heat the evaporator, so instead he used water from the radiator. Well, it wasn't quite hot enough to do the vaporizing job completely. Periodically, he had to drain and waste the build up of liquid gasoline from the system. However, in spite of all the waste, he still netted 60 miles to the Gallon! Someone else up that way got about that much mileage until his truck caught on fire and burned up! Anyone else who does anything with these plans are totally on their own! I'll tell you my plans, but first, I'll scan in the Pogue Carburetor patent.
Let's all take our hats off to Mr. Charles Nelson Pogue. There's been a lot of high mileage carburetors, but I think he may have done it first. If you want to know what others have to say about the Pogue carburetor, just ask Google for "2026798 mileage" (without the "quote" marks) and take your pick of web sites.

Sepp's Note: Frank sent a copy of Pogue's patent, a scan of an old photocopy, not the clearest. But you can find the patents on other sites. One good link is on Rex Research. Should that link go bad, don't despair, there is a PDF copy here

. - - -
The Gasoline Vapor Maker
as described by Frank
Here are the plans which I drew up in about 1970. George's buddy from the midwest made one, and others have been made. So I advertised "The Gasoline Vapor Maker" in a national magazine. I sold a few. Then I got a nasty, threatening letter, and got cold feet. So I wrote to all the buyers and offered them their money back if they returned the plans. Two or three came back for refunds, the rest were kept by the buyers, who I never heard from again.
However, from that time on, everybody and his brother started advertizing my plans. Of course they were changed in an attempt to make it unrecognizable so that they wouldn't look like copies my plans. Now the cat was really out of the bag, and the petroleum industry couldn't threaten and scare that many people. Now what would the biggest industry in the world do to protect their money cow? Change the formula, that's what! Now, the additives in gasoline make it nearly impossible to vaporize until after the combustion. Just enough will vaporize for a correct mixture in the combustion chamber. The rest goes out the exhaust system to evaporate on the way out. Of course, by now, the EPA has stepped in in an attempt to cut down on pollution. They require most vehicles to have catalytic converters. However, if the gasoline was completely vaporized before the combustion, and burned in the combustion, the catalytic converter wouldn't have much to do. Not only that, catalytic converters don't prevent pollution, they only change it to a different form - for better or for worse!
Whatever you do with implementing these plans is totally at your own risk! I'm sure that someone else can come up with better plans. However, if you use my plans, someone else's, or come up with your own plans, know that there are dangers involved - from explosions, big money interests, or errors (as in "trial and error") As far as I am concerned, you are on your own. Have fun, but be very careful.

The Operation of THE GASOLINE VAPOR MAKER
The raw gasoline leaves the vehicle's gasoline tank (1) and goes through the first electric gasoline pump (2) and on to the atomizing chamber (11) where it is forced through the atomizers (4) and strikes the first baffle (10). What is not vaporized, then falls to the bottom of the chamber.
The three baffles (10) are slanted so that any droplets that form due to condensation will also run down to the bottom of the chamber (11). It should be possible to open and clean the chamber (11) periodically.
The raw (or liquid) gasoline level (7) in the chamber (11) is maintained slightly above the top of the standpipe (6) by the float and stopper(9) arrangement. When the liquid level (7) rises too high, the float raises the stopper (9) and the raw gasoline is allowed to go down the return pipe (3) to be recirculated through the first electric gasoline pump (2).Since it is easier for the pump (2) to draw raw gasoline from the return pipe (3) than from the gasoline tank (1), only that portion of raw gasoline that is actually vaporized will be drawn from the tank. A low pressure restriction valve (not pictured) may, in certain applications, be necessary in the line coming from the gasoline tank (1).
Air can, either freely or slightly forced (perhaps by the engine's radiator fan), enter the air inlet (8) to bubble up through the finely perforated screen (5) into the atomizing chamber (11) to mix with the raw gasoline droplets, helping them to form vapor.
The vapor then goes back and forth between the baffles (10) and finally enters heater (12) through the vapor pipes (13).The vapor heater (12) consists of large diameter pipe (like perhaps a four inch truck exhaust pipe two or three feet long) in which hot exhaust fumes from the vehicle's exhaust system flow through to keep it heated. The size and length of it is dependent upon the size and need of the engine. The exhaust fumes are then returned to the exhaust system. In this large pipe (12) is a series of small pipes (13) which carry the vapors back and forth many times through the vapor heater (12). These vapor pipes (13) may be anywhere from one half inch to perhaps one inch in diameter, whatever is necessary to carry sufficient vapor for the size of the engine. It might be helpful to use a spiral type of pipe such as is used for connecting heaters and stoves to natural gas outlets.
After going back and forth for a number of times, the vapor is then piped directly into the second electric gasoline pump (15) which can pump the vapor up to perhaps 20 pounds per square inch. It then returns directly to the vapor heater (12) to be piped back and forth some more.
The pressure of the vapor between the second pump (15) and the vapor valve (18) is maintained at a constant level regardless of how much or how little is actually allowed to enter the carburetor (24). This accomplished by the adjustable pressure relief valve (14). The higher you adjust the valve (14), the richer the air / vapor mixture in the carburetor (24), likewise, the lower you adjust the valve (14), the leaner the mixture.
The excess vapor that is forced through adjustable pressure relief valve (14), and is continually recirculated through the second electric gasoline pump (15) until it is actually used by the vehicle's engine.
After the vapor leaves the vapor heater (12) for the second time, it goes directly to the vapor valve (18) and then on to the carburetor (24).
Linked with it, the vapor valve (18) opens enough to let pass enough vapor to have a proper air / vapor mixture regardless of the position of the throttle valve (22). The linkage (26) should go between the throttle valve (22), and the vapor valve (18) to make them work in conjunction with each other. It should be adjustable.
Bypassing the vapor valve (18), is the idle mixture channel (17), which allows to pass enough of the vapor to maintain the proper vapor / air mixture while the engine is idling.. On the channel is the adjustable idle orifice (19) which can be adjusted for proper idle mixture. Between this channel and the vapor heater (12), is an electromagnetic valve (16) which remains in a closed position unless the ignition is turned on. The turning on of the ignition switch activates the valve (16) so that it is held on, allowing free flow of the vapor. Note: in some of the modern vehicles, the ignition can be turned on for auxiliary use even when the engine is not running. In these, a separate switch will have to be added. This switch could be hidden to prevent unauthorized use of the vehicle.
In the closed position, the electromagnetic valve (16) is so well closed, that absolutely NO vapor can escape through to cause a dangerous situation while the engine is not running.
The vapor enters the carburetor (24) through the specially drilled port (20) in the ventura below the throttle valve (22). A flash screen (23) is provided over the port (20) to prevent a backfire by the engine from igniting the vapor in the lines.
The choke valve (21) will operate in the same manner as in the original arrangement, except that automatic chokes may need a little adjustment. However, I doubt if a choke would actually be needed because the gasoline is completely vaporized.
The original float chamber (25) on the carburetor (24) is left intact except that the old gasoline line (27) that brings the raw gasoline from the tank (1) is disconnected. Both the line (27) and the float chamber (25) entrance are plugged.
If the Gasoline Vapor Maker should ever be removed from the vehicle, the port (20) may be closed over and the gasoline line (27) reconnected to put it back to the original operation, thus allowing the owner to install the Gasoline Vapor Maker on his next vehicle.
Early numbered drawing of Gasoline Vapor Maker
Later drawing of Gasoline Vapor Maker (not to scale)
- - -
In addition to these plans for his version of a Gasoline Vapor Maker, Frank sent a later version, which however was never made or tried. It is a variation of the first one, and is reproduced here for any experimenter out there who would like to try a different design.
As always, be careful. You alone are responsible for what you are doing.

The Gasoline Vapor Maker #2
This is a later version I had made, but it was never tried or proven. However, it might be a lot easier to make. Again, all the cautions and disclaimers apply. If you make this, you are on your own. Make sure your insurance is paid up. Remember that this is totally in the experimental stage, and you assume any and all the risk. View these drawings as a starter that can be redrawn by you into something better. This is not copyrighted or patented, so that big money interests can't buy it out of our hands. Let's keep it that way.
1. Gasoline Tank
2. Electric Gasoline Pump
3. Gasoline Line
4. Gasoline Line
5. Lock-off Valve
6. Check Valve (for Gasoline)
7. Gasoline Line
8. Vaporizing Tank
9. Lower Chamber of #8.
10. Upper Chamber of #8
11. Valve
11a. Standpipe
12. Float
13. Inlet Valve
14. Tube
15. Upper Gasoline Level
16. Lower Gasoline Level
17. Heating Coil
18. Check Valve (for Vapor)
19. Vapor Line
20. Vapor Pump
21. Vapor Line
22. Pressurized Tank
23. Pressure Relief Valve
24. Vapor Line
25. Atomizer Jet
25a. Alternate Location for Atomizer Jet
26. Pressure Relief Valve
27. Whistle
28. Emergency Relief Line
29. Vapor Line
30. High Pressure Regulator
31. Low Pressure Regulator
32. Lock-off Valve
33. Vapor Line to Carburetor

See drawing for Gasoline Vapor Maker #2


The Operation Of THE GASOLINE VAPOR MAKER #2
Note: All temperatures given are in Fahrenheit. All inches, etc. mentioned are in USA measurements. PSI is pounds per square inche as in USA pressure measures.
The liquid gasoline leaves the vehicle's gasoline tank (1) and goes to the electric gasoline pump (2) through line (3), then through line (4) to lock-off valve (5) and check valve (6) then through line (7) to inlet valve and float assembly (12 & 13) and into the vaporizing tank (8).
The vaporizing tank (8) is divided into two chambers, the upper chamber (10) and the lower chamber (9). The liquid gasoline sets in the bottom of the lower chamber (9) and is filled to upper gasoline level (15). It is then cut off from further filling by the float and valve assembly (12 & 13). It is heated by coils (17) until vaporized.
There is a valve (11) mounted on a hole on the sloping divider between upper chamber (10) and lower chamber (9). This valve (11) remains open for pressure equalization between the chambers (9& 10), but closes when pressure reaches 50 psi, (?) At which time the liquid gasoline remaining in the bottom of the lower chamber (9) is forced up tube (14) by the pressure in lower chamber (9) continuing to rise, thus bringing the liquid gasoline level down to the lower level (16). This insures that too much vapor is not made, thus bringing the pressure too high.
Vapor is then pumped through check valve (18) and vapor line (19) by the electric vapor pump (20), on through vapor line (21) into the pressure tank (22). PLEASE NOTE: It may be better to install check valve (18) in vapor line (21) between vapor pump (20) and pressure tank (22), rather then in the vapor line (19) as shown in the drawing.
When the vapor pressure in pressurized tank (22) reaches 80 or 90 PSI, some pressure escapes through the pressure relief valve (23) and line (24) and is broken up into many small streams of vapor by the atomizing jet (25) further vaporizing the liquid gasoline in bottom of chamber (9). An alternate location (25a) for the atomizing jet (25) can continue to vaporize the liquid gasoline after enough has already been vaporized.
Another purpose for the pressure relief valve (23) is to remove from pressure tank (22) liquid gasoline that has condensed. This is why valve (23) is located in the bottom of tank (22).
In the event of a malfunction of pressure relief valve (23) or any other malfunction that would cause the pressure in the pressurized tank (22) to rise near a dangerous level, pressure relief valve (26), at 120 PSI, will release and vapor would travel along emergency escape line (28) and into the exhaust pipe near the muffler for a safe disposal of fumes. (Or is the vehicle has a catalytic converter, just ahead of it.) At that same time, a whistle (27) installed in vapor line (28) would sound, thus alerting the operator to the malfunction.
When vapor is being used, it travels through the line (29), high pressure regulator (31). These pressure regulators are mounted in series and drop the pressure to the proper level for the entire carburetor. The lock-off valve (32) holds back all vapor when the ignition switch is off. When the ignition switch is on, lock-off valve (32) is open, allowing low pressure vapor in high volume to go through vapor line (33) to the carburetor.
The carburetor may be of the type used for LP gas operation. But it would be better to use the existing carburetor already mounted on the engine (for use with liquid gasoline), using a dual fuel application such as is used with LP gas, thus allowing operator to switch from using the vapor system to liquid gasoline or vice versa. If engine has remained idle or unused for a long period of time, it may be necessary to use the liquid gasoline system already on the engine until pressure in tank (22) is built up. A switch on control panel allows the operator or driver to change from one system to the other at will. Also, a pressure gauge mounted on the panel can tell the operator or driver when pressure in tank (22) has reached sufficient level for operation - approximately 50 PSI or higher.

SPECIFICATIONS
2. Gasoline Pump: 12 volt or the voltage of the system it is used in. The type used normally in autos.
5. Lock-off Valve: 12 volt. Remains in closed position when ignition switch is off; when ignition switch is on, it remains in open position. It is an added safety feature to prevent seepage of vapor into the into the gasoline tank (1) when engine is not in use. It is the type used for liquid gasoline.
6. Check Valve: A one way valve which allows liquid to be pumped toward the vapor maker, but not permitting vapor to be pushed toward gasoline tank (1) while system is in operation.
8. Vaporizing Tank: Anywhere from 8 to 16 inches in diameter and 14 to 24 inches high, depending on the size of the engine it is used on. The upper chamber (10) occupies the top 1/3 of the vaporizing tank (8) and is strictly for holding liquid gasoline when enough of it has been vaporized to raise pressure sufficiently. The bottom of the upper chamber slopes at approximately 20 or 30 degrees toward the center tube (14) so that liquid gasoline can drain back down completely, even when the vehicle is operating on a hillside or slope. The lower chamber (9) also has a sloping bottom at approximately 20 or 30 degrees toward the center where a cup like pocket, about 2 inches deep and 3 or 4 inches in diameter is located for the tube (14) to protrude about halfway into. This is necessary to keep the lower level of the liquid gasoline below the coil (17) no matter how steep the hill the vehicle is climbing or descending. The vaporizing tank (8) is mounted in an upright position and should be built to withstand internal pressures up to 200 PSI.
11. Valve: A specially made valve which normally remains open to vapor travel both ways between upper chamber (10) and lower chamber (9). It has a standpipe (11a) which reaches to within 1 inch of the top of upper chamber (10). This valve (11) closes to traffic both ways when the pressure in the chambers (9 & 10) reaches 50 PSI. It does not need to be a high volume valve and can be controlled by a bellows type unit which is sensitive to change in pressure.
12. Float: and 13. Inlet Valve: This assembly should be made of material that can withstand high heat and high pressure and still remain in operation.
14. Tube: Is permanently open into the very bottom of the upper chamber (10) and at the other end near bottom of the lower chamber (9) at the lower liquid gasoline level (16) - about half way between the top and bottom of the cup like pocket located in the very bottom of the vaporizing tank (8). This tube is 1/4 inch inside diameter.
15. Upper Liquid Gasoline Level: Should be at least 2 inches above the coil (17). It is controlled by float and valve assembly (12 & 13).
16. Lower Liquid Gasoline Level: Should be at least 2 inches below the coil (17) and is determined by the location of the bottom end of the tube (14).
17. Heater Coil: Is mounted at least 1 inch above bottom of chamber (9) - at least 1 ½ inches cup like pocket of chamber (9). It remains totally submersed in liquid gasoline except when the liquid gasoline has been forced up the tube (14), lowering the liquid gasoline down to level (16) which would be at least 2 inches below the coil. This coil (17) can be 12 volt electric, controlled by a thermostat at 200 degrees. Ore it can be a pipe through which hot exhaust is gases from the engine exhaust manifold. The exhaust is then returned to the exhaust pipe somewhere between the exhaust manifold and the muffler, preferably nearer the muffler, at a point where a slight ventura is built into the exhaust pipe to insure suction, or the flow of exhaust gases through the heater coil (17). It may be necessary to use a thermostat control to cut or even stop flow of exhaust gases through the heater coil (17) when the temperature reaches 200 degrees. PLEASE NOTE: It may also be necessary to use a pressure switch located in tank chamber (9) to shut off all heat if pressure should rise above 90 PSI - regardless of which heat system is used.
18. Check Valve: Is a one way valve similar to valve (6) except that it is a type used for vapor. It is to prevent the vapor from the pressure tank from seeping back through lines (19 & 21), but allows the pump (20) to pump vapor into the tank (22).
20. Vapor Pump: 12 volt electric and can pump hot vapor up to 110 PSI. It runs at continuous operation while ignition switch is on.
22. Pressurized Tank: Is pressurized by the vapor pump and should be strong enough to withstand pressure exceeding 200 PSI. It could be anywhere from 10 inches to 24 inches in diameter and from 17 inches to 36 inches long depending on the size of the engine or the volume of vapor needed.
23. Pressure Relief Valves: Remains closed until pressure in pressurized tank (22) is 90 PSI at which time it opens, allowing the excess pressure or vapor to go through the line (24) and jet (25) into the lower chamber (10) of tank (8).
25. Atomizing Jet: Sucks liquid gasoline in through the bottom of the unit and mixes it with the vapor going through line (24) and jet (25) and forces the mixture out through several small holes.
26. Pressure Relief Valve: Is like valve (23) but it is set for 120 PSI. It is for emergency, in case of any malfunction causing too high pressure in tank (22) and should be mounted on the top of tank (22).
27. Whistle: Can withstand high heat and make a loud, shrill sound when vapor is blown through.
30. High Pressure Regulator: and 31. Low Pressure Regulator: Such as are used in LP gas operations. Both are adjustable and are mounted in series.
32. Lock-off Valve: Similar to, and has the same function as valve (5), except that it is a type used for vapor.
33. Vapor Line: From Regulator (31) to the carburetor should be large enough in diameter to allow high enough volume of low pressure vapor through it to maintain engine speed. Depending on the size of the engine, it should be anywhere from 1 inch to3 inches in diameter.

Parting shot:
I had uncovered this set of plans which I had forgotten about due to a stroke, they are unproven, and have been setting in my files for something like 35 years. However, if this one works, it would be most likely to overcome the modern gasoline configuration. I don't know until it is tried. I no longer have what it takes to test these things. If you want to try it, you would have to do it totally at your own risk. Over the years, I spent many, many weeks' effort on them, but am charging nothing for them. Whatever you do, be very careful! Gasoline vapors are very explosive! Make sure all your insurance is paid up. One last request: Please leave a message here of any reports of your successes or failures.

Gasoline reformulated
In the US and probably elsewhere, gasoline was reformulated to no longer allow Pogue type carbs to work properly.
Phil Ratte explains how:
Catalytic cracking started to be used by oil refineries in the late 1930's. Just in time to defeat Pogue's carburetor and any others that used a vaporization principle. The use of catalytic cracking increased the amount of gasoline that could be produced from a barrel of crude. It also allowed heavy ends to make up a portion of the gasoline. Heavy ends are long chain hydrocarbons that have a high vaporization temperature. In fact, the spontaneous ignition temperature of the light ends is higher than this vaporization temperature so if you heat the gasoline high enough to vaporize the heavy ends you explode the light ends.
A friend of mine used to go up to Winnepeg, Canada in the 1980's to visit Pogue who was living in a Nursing Home at the time. One of the stories that Pogue told him was about the Battle of El Alamein that was the turning point of WW II. Previous to this battle, Rommel's Tank Corps would chase the British tanks till they ran out of gas. Rommel's tanks would then retire and allow the artillery to destroy the British tanks. They could do this because they had more efficient engines with a longer range.
Pogue had been hired to design a combustion system for our tanks that gave them a greater range than Rommel's tanks. At the battle of El Alamein, our tanks ran Rommel's tanks out of gas and our artillery picked them off like ducks in a shooting gallery. Whenever one of our tanks with Pogue's combustion system was disabled or destroyed, there was a crew who would dismantle and remove the combustion system in these tanks that were sealed in a black steel box.
There is a website and a CD that have 604 carburetor patents that have been assigned to various companies and never developed. There were 53 inventors who wouldn't sell out. Each of them had fatal "accidents" two to three weeks after refusing to sell their patent(s). I knew four of these inventors personally. The website is http://www.fuelvapors.com/.
Phil Ratte is a retired mechanical engineer, who graduated from the University of Minnesota with a BME (Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering) degree in 1961. A few years later he got his license as a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota and later in the State of Wisconsin.
In 1978, Phil ran for the U.S. Senate on a platform of new energy related ideas that included ethanol blended fuels.
From 1979 to the present, Mr. Ratte has tested over 90 devices and additives that promised to save fuel and reduce pollution.
In the 1980's, Phil designed 4 buildings using SolarCrete. Three commercial buildings and one home which use 75 to 80% less energy than similar buildings of other designs. These buildings should last over 500 years. They are earthquake proof and will withstand 300 mph
winds.
From 1981 to 1989, Phil worked with a wealthy inventor, Herb Hansen, to develop two prototypes vehicles that ran on 1/3 ethanol and 2/3 water. Herb died of a major stroke at a very convenient time for the Oil Cartel. Two months after Herb died the U.S. Secret Service entered Phil's home with a warrant and copied his files on their ethanol project. When he tried to find out what the Probable Cause was to issue the warrant, he found that the Federal Judge had sealed the file. Phil has known 4 men including Herb who died after refusing big money for their very promising energy saving devices.
53 inventors with revolutionary energy saving inventions have met untimely "accidental" deaths just after refusing large sums of money for their patents. Other inventors have received millions of dollars for their patents that were then left undeveloped. Phil says he has a CD that has 920 energy saving patents in it that were assigned (sold) to various automobile, oil, and other companies and then buried.
In the 1990's, Phil was hired to do testing for two companies that were selling magnetic fuel saving devices. He appeared as an expert witness in a criminal trial in Missouri. His success there caused the 29 states that were prosecuting the second magnet company to quietly drop their cases. It also caused the Minnesota Attorney General to try to attack Phil's Minnesota Professional Engineering license. That Attorney General was Hubert H. Humphrey III who Phil helped Jesse Ventura defeat for Governor in 1998.
It is very strange, says Phil, that after 1994 magnets could no longer improve fuel efficiency. Apparently the computer chips in cars after that time were programmed to defeat any device like the magnets that provided more complete burning of the fuel and potential fuel savings. (Any underground programmers out there who can re-program these chips to take advantage of novel fuels?)
Phil's web page: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN SIX YEARS

See also:

McBurney Cracks the Code for Super-Carburetors
Inventor J. Bruce McBurney says the key to super carburetors is the catalytic cracking of the larger gasoline molecules into the dynamic combusting single-carbon molecules of methane and methanol, in the presence of heat, a catalyst, and water vapor.
The 50% MPG Gain That Detroit Won't Touch
(Washington Post - you may need to register to see the article)
Vaporized fuel, when properly mixed with air, burns more efficiently, saves fuel and emits fewer tailpipe pollutants than traditional fuel-air mixtures in which gasoline is sprayed into a combustion chamber in tiny droplets and then mixed with air before burning. All car companies know this. Most have sought to increase combustion efficiency by swirling gasoline in intake valves before mixing it with air and by using computers to more precisely open and close engine intake and exhaust valves to better meter fuel-air mixtures. The manufacturers' rapid-swirl, electronically controlled variable-valve lift technology has brought about substantial increases in fuel efficiency--but nothing near the reported 40 percent to 60 percent improvements in efficiency touted by inventors of the pre-heating, fuel vaporizing equipment.

Here is a guy who seems to have mastered the vapor trick.
Video on YouTube: White Gasoline Vapor could slow Global Warming, save money, & have more Power than ever.

Update January 2011:
A reader, Gary T. Kirkland, asked if he could put up a photo. He says he obtains a flame similar as that from butane gas, when burning a 100:1 mix of air and vaporized gasoline. Here is his message, for those who may be interested...

I would like an answer to a question. Please look at the attached Photo of my Gasoline Vaporizer. With the aid of a low pressure Air Compressor, Vaporized Gasoline at 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel, intended to power an Engine, is instead safely ignited to prove that it actually works. Notice the colors of the flame. It goes from Blue to Yellow to Orange. This is the very same flame color pattern of a bic butane lighter. This is proof that there is really no difference between Butane and Gasoline.


With Vaporized Gasoline, even the largest SUV could easily get 50 + MPG, and emit a fraction of the Emissions of an EPA-OBD II mandated fuel system, which operates at 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel. Also, with Vaporized Gasoline, there's an increase in power, as well as much longer engine life. And the resulting Flame has a much lower combustion temperature than Natural Gas, or Propane, both of which burn Blue. Hydrogen burns even hotter. The problem with such a high combustion temperature is that an Engine has to be modified to withstand it, which is very expensive. Again, not so with safely Vaporized Gasoline.
In the past, Vaporizers relied on engine heat to function. With the additives in today's Fuel, that's all but impossible. My unit uses low pressure Air to do it's thing. But there is another problem. All Gasoline powered vehicles from 1996 to the present are required to pass the EPA-OBD II vehicle emissions inspection. All such vehicles have on board oxygen [O2] exhaust sensors. These O2 sensors are set up to detect a level of polluting Exhaust Emissions that would indicate that Fuel is being metered into the engine at 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of Fuel. This is detected by the level of polluting Exhaust Emissions registered when a vehicle is connected to an OBD II Emissions Analyzer for it's annual Emissions Inspection.
Anything below 14.7 / 1 would result in an excess level of polluting Exhaust Emissions being generated. This will result in a failed Emissions Inspection, as well it should. But, with a vaporized fuel mixture of 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel, the result will be far less polluting Exhaust Emissions. O2 sensors are incapable of registering anything far below the established resulting emissions of an air/fuel Ratio of the 14.7/1 level. An O2 sensor failure code will result if such a vehicle is connected to an OBD II emissions inspection analyzer.
O2 sensor exemptions are granted for vehicles that have been legally converted to operate on Natural Gas, Propane, or Hydrogen, and are registered as such. But no such exemption exists for Vaporized Gasoline. Thus, it is entirely possible for any vehicle from 1996 to the present to fail an Emissions Inspection for not emitting enough polluting Exhaust Emissions! Also, since the vast majority of Vehicle Manufacturers wish to sell their Vehicles in the U.S.A., they are made to comply with this EPA-OBD II Law. Thus, this amounts to a World-Wide Issue.
I'm convinced that alternative use of conventional Energy, at least in the short term is the way to go. But the Big Oil Corporations, with Big Government in their pockets, are going to fight this every way they can!
For even more insight, do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle. Then, go to http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html. Scroll on down the Page and check out the last few Paragraphs just before the Update. Until this insane EPA-OBD II Law that only benefits Big Oil is changed, the only way to make vehicles more "efficient" will be to make them smaller and lighter. I have contacted, and joined the new Administration's site, www.change.org and they're too busy to be bothered with it. Likewise www.friendsoftheearth.com, www.michaelmoore.com www.algore.org and many other Environmental Organizations as well.
Not one of them, nor any Politician can or will honestly answer my question: "Why is it illegal for any vehicle from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting Exhaust Emissions "?
I'm not trying to sell anything. Everyone else that's tried to do so has been effectively stopped one way or another. But I must ask, if you truly care about the Environment, can you please answer my question? No one else seems to be able to do so.
Thanks ! Gary.

Posted by Sepp on April 14, 2007 2:55 PM | Permalink

Comments

April 14, 2007 5:26 PM| Posted by: Eric

Eric comments (by email):
these patents are long since expired - if they really work, anyone could reproduce them. About 20 countries in the world can make cars, I see no reason none of them would want to totally take over the trillion dollar car marketplace and have a balanced budge by not having to pay for oil
My reply:
yes it seems incredible, yet only tinkerers are doing it. I know of a few who are using such a system - one sent over a video - but there seems zero interest by the car companies. As long as what they have works well (for them), who wants to rock the boat?

April 14, 2007 5:33 PM| Posted by: John K

John K sends a link to this announcement:

AUTOMOTIVE X PRIZE ANNOUNCES DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR COMPETITION
Innovators Invited to Help Solve One of Our World’s Grand Challenges
Santa Monica, Calif. (April 2, 2007) - The X PRIZE Foundation, the organization behind the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE that successfully challenged teams to build private spacecraft to open up the space frontier, is taking a step toward launching an Automotive X PRIZE (AXP) that will inspire super-efficient vehicles that exceed 100 miles per gallon or its equivalent.
In draft guidelines to be released at the New York Auto Show, the AXP outlines an independent competition that will result in clean, efficient vehicles that help break our addiction to oil and stem the effects of climate change. The AXP also invites interested teams - major auto companies and innovators alike - to execute letters of intent to participate as the AXP moves toward an official launch later this year.
"We invite the world's best and brightest minds to look at this independent, high-profile competition as a way to make a difference for generations to come," said Mark Goodstein, executive director, Automotive X PRIZE. "In the spirit of grand competitions throughout history - including Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic 80 years ago - we expect that the Automotive X PRIZE will bring about change and innovation for the benefit of everybody. This competition will help level the playing field and capture entrepreneurial, scientific and technical energy to bring about viable cars that consumers want to buy."
The draft guidelines outline a challenging multi-year competition with a multi-million-dollar cash purse. Teams first are required to meet arduous standards proving they are capable of designing and building production-capable, super-efficient vehicles. The vehicles then will compete in a series of rigorous stage races that test the vehicles under real-world driving requirements and conditions. Vehicles will compete in two different categories - Mainstream (4+ passengers, 4+ wheels) and Alternative (2+ passengers, no requirement on number of wheels). Winning vehicles must exceed 100 miles per gallon or its equivalent, while also meeting rigorous emission requirements...

April 14, 2007 6:02 PM| Posted by: Sepp

A reader who does not like to be named says vaporization works but is not well compatible with our piston-type internal combustion engines:
Hi,
Thanks for your message. Just by way of comment, here are some details:
Several atomization systems have been proposed over the years. The problem is that they are not compatible with piston engines. Search the SAE database for details (generally, no more than 40% of the fuel must be atomized).

Basically, piston needs the maximum pressure 20 to 30 degrees past the top dead center,
so that the combustion must be somewhat delayed for optimal operation. Small droplets help providing this delay. Atomization make the combustion too fast and too hot (near stochiometric), and rapidly damages the piston exhaust valves.

Modern computer injection systems go exactly in the opposite direction, by injecting all droplets with almost no atomization. Because the volume of fuel vapor occupies 600 times the volume of liquid fuel, pre-vaporization of the fuel removes space for air intake, and reduces engine power (which is sometimes confusing, because it could lead to increased miles/gal, but at lower power level).
In modern piston engines droplets are such that combustion occurs at the right time and almost completely. There would be no significant energy efficiency gain by going atomized.

Atomization is however suitable for detonation engines like the Quasiturbine. In that kind of engine, combustion needs to be very fast and volumetric.
Not intended as criticsm, it's just plain info.

April 14, 2007 7:33 PM| Posted by: Paul Werbos

Paul Werbos says by email:
I don't believe it.
Great breakthroughs can be had in car design (see www.werbos.com/energy.htm), but not by ignoring
the basic principles that govern the numbers.
You can't get four times the mpg, for the same size and weight of vehicle and the same fuel, without multiplying the engine efficiency by four. That's hard to do when it's about 25% or more already (at nominal loading) and it's a heat engine limited by Carnot's Laws. If the guy makes crazy or just misleading claims on one central thing... it casts doubt on the rest.
The pattern of fuel injection doesn't solve the off-nominal energy loss problems or braking loss or the rest.
Besides, the challenge for now is to get off of gasoline in any case.
Best of luck to us all,
Paul

April 14, 2007 10:26 PM| Posted by: Frank

All the motor vehicle manufacturers are in full knowledge that gasoline does not burn, but only the vapor burns, and they know how to do it. However, ever since the original Henry Ford died, every single auto manufacturer is too scared spitless to buck the system established by the gasoline companies. Every auto maker is firmly in the oil industry's pocket, and woe to any who tries to creep out! When Ford Motor Company first came out with the Ford Falcon, it got 32 MPG, but right the next year, Falcon only got 25 MPG. Soon after that, when SKI Corp. (Frantz Oil Cleaner Co.) wanted to start selling a carburetor that was guaranteed to get at least 45 MPG on any American made auto, their lawyer discovered a law that was now on the books, making it against Federal law to manufacture, sell, or install a carburetor that got over 25 MPG. So they had to scrap the whole thing! In later years, due to popular public pressure, the EPA made the FEDS bend that rule, and we saw higher mileage American made autos on the market. It was like the higher mileage autos were brought out grudgingly though. You'll notice that they keep trying to slip the gas mileage back down every chance they get. The scenario we now have is the Feds, the gas companies on one hand, and the EPA under pressure of the people on the other hand, with the auto industry in the middle, trying to appease both sides!
You'll never have a big company come out with an ultimate mileage carburetor. It will have to be done by private individuals, and only for themselves. If enough of us do it, we may eventually turn the tide a bit.
p.s.
I only drew the plans. Because I am disabled, others made the working models, using my plans, and were amazed at the results. However, the gasoline in the US and Canada has now been specifically formulated to make sure these types of carburetors no longer work. I don't know if gasoline in Europe has the same additives.

April 15, 2007 12:38 AM| Posted by: Philip Madsen

Cant subscribe. get rid of feedblitz..here is what I sent them. Type your request here: NOBODY IN MY HOUSE CAN properly discern the difference between figure 1 and capital I in the text.. also the light pastel shade makes it worse to read.. We are not disabled or blind.. forgiver me for suspecting you don't want me to subscribe.. I spent 5 minutes with a magnefying glass with the first attempt which failed, and was sent another different code which was even worse.. I gave up..

April 15, 2007 10:31 AM| Posted by: Sepp

Sorry about that mess with Feedblitz. It will take a while to sort out.
Anyway, I have added your email to my personal notification list so you'll get updated when new articles come out.
Anyone else having trouble subscribing - just email me and I will add you to manual notification of new articles.
Sepp

April 15, 2007 10:44 AM| Posted by: Phil Ratte

Catalytic cracking started to be used by oil refineries in the late 1930's. Just in time to defeat Pogue's carburetor and any others that used a vaporization principle. The use of catalytic cracking increased the amount of gasoline that could be produced from a barrel of crude. It also allowed heavy ends to make up a portion of the gasoline. Heavy ends are long chain hydrocarbons that have a high vaporization temperature. In fact, the spontaneous ignition temperature of the light ends is higher than this vaporization temperature so if you heat the gasoline high enough to vaporize the heavy ends you explode the light ends.
A friend of mine used to go up to Winnepeg, Canada in the 1980's to visit Pogue who was living in a Nursing Home at the time. One of the stories that Pogue told him was about the Battle of El Alamein that was the turning point of WW II. Previous to this battle, Rommel's Tank Corps would chase the British tanks till they ran out of gas. Rommel's tanks would then retire and allow the artillery to destroy the British tanks. They could do this because they had more efficient engines with a longer range.
Pogue had been hired to design a combustion system for our tanks that gave them a greater range than Rommel's tanks. At the battle of El Alamein, our tanks ran Rommel's tanks out of gas and our artillery picked them off like ducks in a shooting gallery. Whenever one of our tanks with Pogue's combustion system was disabled or destroyed, there was a crew who would dismantle and remove the combustion system in these tanks that were sealed in a black steel box.
There is a website and a CD that have 604 carburetor patents that have been assigned to various companies and never developed. There were 53 inventors who wouldn't sell out. Each of them had fatal "accidents" two to three weeks after refusing to sell their patent(s). I knew four of these inventors personally. The website is http://www.fuelvapors.com/.
My name is Phil Ratte. I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME 1961 U of MN) who practiced as a Professional Engineer for 27 years in Minnesota. I ran for the U.S. Senate last year on one issue, Energy Independence. Amy Klobuchar was a fast learner and defeated NEOpubliCON Congressman Mark Kennedy by over 20% using this issue. In 1986, I ran for Governor of Minnesota with a single issue campaign, Ethanol Fuel from Minnnesota Corn. We are now the number one state per capita producer of ethanol. Minnesota has more E85 (85% ethanol) gas stations than all the other states combined.

April 15, 2007 11:03 AM| Posted by: Frank

Answer to Paul: Liquid gasoline, whether it is injected, atomized into droplets, are in one class. Gasoline vapor is in a class by itself, and the calculations are altogether different.

April 15, 2007 4:36 PM| Posted by: Ron

In 1985 I lived in Binghamton,NY. I offered jobs to three of my friends from Madison,WI. They arrived one day in a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup with 33 inch tires. I said that must have killed them money wise for gas. They said they spent $9 for gas. I was amazed and asked how so. They opened the hood and there was a black box where the carburetor should have been.They told me they got 210 miles per gallon. I asked did they invent the device and they said no. It was their version of the Pogue plans from the public library.They then drew the plans for me in pencil. It was very simple and had no moving parts except for the choke and throttle valve.I was told if it wasn't built right, it would turn into a bomb.I was told to put my face down to the exhaust and smell. I said I couldn't smell anything. They said that was because 99% of the fuel was being burned.This was their 3rd prototype. The first ran a lawnmower for a week nonstop on a pint of gas. The second got just over 100 mpg on a Ford LTD stationwagon. They were very paranoid about having these.I have lost touch with them over the years. My own truck, Chevy Blazer 1986 350 ci. gets 22 mpg by the use of water vapor.1 cubic inch of water vapor expands 5 times more than 1 cubic inch of gas vapor. This was shown to me by an airplane mechanic who said the B52 bombers used this in world war 2.

April 16, 2007 12:48 AM| Posted by: ken

Very interesting info that connects many dots -- Have you checked the fuel economy work of the folks at www.brightgreen.us and Fuel economy tips - lots of info and suggestions and some small devices to enable the individual to "double " their current milage
Involves "preheating fuel" -- certain additives that apperently counter the effects of the oil co. additives --- requires ATTENTION TO DETAILS by the average home mechanic --- results verifible by dashboard SCANGAUGE --- one of the essentials is to get the engine running as smooth as possible peace ken

April 16, 2007 6:31 AM| Posted by: Frank E.

Question for Phil Ratte : So they changed the formula back in the 30s? Might they have further defined the formula since then, or added more restrictive additives? The reason I asked is because my carburetors worked in the 70s and 80s, but they don't work with US gasoline today. Frank

April 16, 2007 2:54 PM| Posted by: Mike

Interesting,
Yes, we have all heard and read about the super carbs over the years, and no doubt, the oil companies can modify the gas to suit their needs and desires, so nothing new here either.
With so many additives available to alter the fuel burn, it would be near impossible to introduce a product which would enhance fuel performance these days. Just look at BTF was the most recent fiasco big oil pushed down our throats in the name of reduced emmissions, and it turned out to be worse for the environment.
I have been testing different fuel additives for years, and everytime one looks promising, a new additive is introduced, so I can relate to the cracking change in the 30's, nothing new here, big oil will do everything possible to protect their billions in profits every year.
www.Gas-Scam.com

April 16, 2007 3:55 PM| Posted by: M.R. Rowley

It is interesting to note that the auto industry does not want high mileage. Back in the early 70's during the so called "oil crisis" (not!) that is when they produced vehicles with much less mileage potential. This was done mainly to offset the conservation measures taken by the consumer, which perhaps both the auto and oil industry under estimated.
One thing that none of the comments touched on is the conspiracy of a handful of men known as the Illuminati, also known as the Banksters. If you think that the free world is run by their sovereign governments, you are sadly mistaken. You all know the golden rule of the arts and science; whoever owns the gold makes the rules! Henry Ford correctly accused the Banksters of starting WWI. What was the purpose? To rid Europe of it crowned heads. WWII was designed to finish what WWI did not. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is really going on in the world. Both the auto industry and the oil industry are in bed with each other, simply because they are run by Masons that are the pawns of the Illuminate.
All your major corporations are headed by Masons. Big Pharma came from the medical experiments done on Jews during WWII. During the Nuremburg Trials, key people that did those experiments were exempt from prosecution. The Illuminati also controlled those trials.
There are hundreds if not thousands of murders, accidents, etc that were perpetrated by the Illuminati. More recently over 200 microbiologists lost their lives since 9/11. This type of thing is unprecedented and the odds of such a thing happening are billions to one! Do you really believe the World Trade Center collapsed because of the fire(s)? NOT! Everything is by design; anything political is well planned. Our occupation of Iraq serves the Illuminati and their agenda. G.W. Bush is just like his daddy; a New World Order man. Ever since FDR (who was ordered by the Illuminati to ship gold to Germany to rebuild their war machine), the United States has been carefully controlled through the political system, mostly through what Eisenhower referred to as the Military Industrial Complex, which is still evidently alive and well.
It is also interesting to note that the Bush administration is acting with impunity in regards to the erosion of our “Rights” per Patriot Acts I and II. Not to mention the cooperation of the phone companies that are allowing illegal wiretaps. Well, what do you expect from companies that are run by Masons? Breaking a clear Constitutional Law by allowing illegals to overrun the country, Re: Article I, section 8, clause 15.
The Federal Reserve System is the largest fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind. Which by the way will soon collapse under its own weight and that currency will be replaced by the Amero slated for 2010. What is going to happen after that will make Black Tuesday look like a Sunday picnic? My suggestion: get out of debt ASAP. Sell your houses and get a cheap apartment. Take the left over money and purchase “hard money” like silver and gold and not on paper. Watch the silver and gold markets, even if they dip a little; it will generally take a steady and sure climb and perhaps peak around 2012. At about that same time the middle class will cease to exist. The only survivors of the coming economic upheaval are going to be the cash rich and the subsidized poor. Do not buy into anything the government, Big Pharma and the banks want to force upon you. We must resign ourselves to taking responsibility for our own lives as is the Constitution prescribes.

April 16, 2007 6:43 PM| Posted by: Frank E.

Very interesting, M. R. Rowley. All true as far as it goes – it is actually only the tip of the iceberg. I would disagree, however, with using gold and silver as a hedge. When the world goes completely off the gold standard, precious metals won't be worth gravel.
I gave up long ago to trying to change the world with my inventions, including carburetors. If we do anything, it will be on an individual basis, and for ourselves.

April 16, 2007 9:26 PM| Posted by: Gerald Rowley

Gerald Rowley comments (by email):
I was able to build my own fuel vaporizer and patent it.

I am able to go 43 mpg. Normally i could go 30-31 mpg.

Do a Google search for Vapster and see.

Thanks, GR
- - -
addition from a later message:
I am currently installing the device on several vehicles, Ford Explorer, BMW, Dodge Caravan, etc.
Also, I am going for a new patent with the upgraded version of Vapster.

April 16, 2007 11:51 PM| Posted by: Frank E.

Very good, Gerald. 30 or 40 percent increase is savings indeed. However, if you should come up with, and try to market, a carb that gets much more than that, you better have a real good life insurance policy.

April 17, 2007 3:45 AM| Posted by: Rene S.

Earlier an email said that injection brings tiny droplets into engines, 20 to 30 degrees after top was the best for bringing power to piston-engines and that there was no place (enough) for air to make vaporized fuel having power and good mileage. Well then, a solution (even for the modern car) in raw terms: disable your ecu (this will disable all fuel injection and all sensors (a prison for thinkerers), put in your vaporizer, and set the spark timing at 20 degrees AFTER top. For increased power, add some metal tips in your airchannel with high voltage which will create ozone (o3) and you can add a vortex ring in your airchannel as well which increases the air-intake.
disabling your ecu will bring down your electronic ignition as well... so maybe you have to add another one, or figure out how to use your own without the rest influencing it.

April 17, 2007 7:14 PM| Posted by: Hal Ade

Re:"April 15, 2007 04:36 PM | Posted by: Ron"
Good note.Just one little "glitch": there were no B52's in WW2. The B52, being a turbojet bomber, didn't come along until about 1956 or so. They may have been re-engined to turboFAN level over the years - who knows.
Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC

April 19, 2007 1:33 AM| Posted by: Frank E.

In the early 1960s, I moved to Ontario, Canada to be near my girlfriend. While there, an acquaintance told me how he and his brothers were messing around with an old auto their folks had. They disconnected the gasoline line coming from the gas tank and ran the engine until the carburetor was completely dry of any gasoline. Then they draped a garden hose into the top of the carburetor and strung it across the yard to an old gas tank that had a little gas in the bottom. Then they cranked the starter until the engine fired up. They ran the engine for quite a while with just the vapors from the top of the old tank. Boys, being boys, they revved the engine a bunch of times until it backfired. They heard a sharp whistle going down the hose, and ducked. When the whistle stopped, they sat up again, just in time for the big explosion, and shrapnel all over the place! There was nothing left of the old tank! And apparently they survived to tell me about it later

April 20, 2007 9:29 PM| Posted by: James Hanlon

I know a fella that has discovered non-detonation nano-diamond powder . This material has molecules several times smaller than the diamond powder produce by detonation and it not contaminated by the TNT residue . He first applied his material to the wheel bearings of a mack truck . The fuel economy went from 5 MPG to 8 MPG just from the reduced friction . He then added the material to the oil , diesel fuel and transmission . It's also proven to correct fuel injector gum ups . His barber no longer has to oil his clippers .

May 3, 2007 9:33 PM| Posted by: leo

I would like to hear more about and/or get some of this non-detonation nano-diamond powder...

May 6, 2007 5:02 AM| Posted by: Grant

James Hanlon, Please send more info on the diamond powder. If it works like that I may have people that can help take it to market.

May 7, 2007 3:09 AM| Posted by: leo

To anyone who is interested, there is someone selling a product called "NanoLube" which fits the description given by James Hanlon...

May 22, 2007 2:10 AM| Posted by: Radical-1

I did a study on the Pogue vapor carb and other devices around 1990 and came to the conclusion that the reformulated gasoline was not going to work as a high mileage fuel source. Recently I have been studying Hydrogen (water) technologies for running our Motor Vehicles, I have found that a few inventors in the past 10 years have met with un-timely deaths as well after refusing to sell out to Big Oil! Do a Google on Stan Meyers, this will lead you to a very productive study about how to run your car on Water (Hydrogen converted onboard). I do think this is the future and truly deserves our attention and effort instead of antiquated fuel systems that are controlled and manipulated by a big cartel.

June 4, 2007 6:10 PM| Posted by: Mark

I'm not an engineer or technician, but the claims that vaporized gasoline will not work in a piston engine seem to me to be quite false. After all, we have LNG and propane powered busses, police cars, etc all which were converted directly from gas powered fuel injected engines. Its all about the computer, the sensors, and the programming.
If you really want to dabble in this you should get a motorcycle engine which does not have any of the computer equipment, install a variable cam gear where you can adjust the cam timing and measure your results. this can all be done on the bench in your garage (with vent pipe to vent the exhaust). prove your theories there and then take them up a step to an old-pre 70's car. The point is, trying to achieve any of this on a modern day car with all the variables in place makes it extremely difficult to tune the carb apparatus that you are trying to build. Perfect your ideas in a controllable environment then move into the more modern engines. This of course is assuming your goal is to build a bolt on apparatus.
And lastly, you should do it in plain view of others. Meaning you build it, patent it, then open source it so every other tinkerer can help develop it. Once patented, it can't be "stolen" and once open sourced, it can't be bullied by big oil. Of course no idea is perfect and even these I've posted have their own flaws.

June 17, 2007 12:53 AM| Posted by: Frank Ebersole

I am reporting herein a question and answer that has passed my way. I will not reveal the names of the people involved. If they wish to reveal themselves, that is up to them. ----
I am a Alternative Energy researcher and I would like to know when that Federal law came about 25 MPG for mainsream auto's. Could you direct me to that Law? I am presently organizing XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX to go up against the corporate oil and auto industry. Any info you could provide would be helpful on that post that Frank gave in this site. ........................
P.S. I find it absolutely outrageous that the public does not know about this law...How can it be legal to even pass a law like this without the public knowledge?......The mainstream media has a blackout on this and suppressed technology..........
******************************************8
Dear XXXXX,
I have been very sick for several months, so I hadn't been checking things like I should have. I will tell you what I can right now from memory, but if you can't find out from that information, let me know, and when I am feeling better, I'll look up more detail for you.
In the 1960s, or there abouts, I was selling Frantz Oil Filters, and at that time, Skipper K. Yee owned the company. The Frantz was sold on a multi-level basis, and was going great guns. We were introducing new automotive products to go along with the Oil Filter line, and there was a great anticipation for a carburetor that was guaranteed to get at least 60 MPG on any American made auto. Just before the introduction date, the whole carburetor thing came to a sudden halt! That was when we were told that there was a law that any American made motor vehicle were not allowed to get over 25 mpg by Federal law!
I don't really know any more about it than that, but I remember that when the Ford Falcon first came out, that first year, they got 32 MPG. Right the next year, the MPG was jerked down to 25 MPG, and after that, all American made Autos stayed below that line, until the EPA entered the picture in more recent years, (a classic case of one government agency over another) that MPG was forced upward.
The Auto Industry is firmly in the Oil Industry's pocket, as you can see by their recent ads about the "impossible" MPG rules that are now being handed down. Well, my heart bleeds peanut butter for them! Those guys know exactly how to do it, but will play politics as long as they can. Same as it has been, it's BIG money games. If EPA wins this one, it will be much better for us this time
Frank

June 17, 2007 12:49 PM| Posted by: Lilian Cipciriuc

A comment and question from Lilian Cipciriuc by email ... and my answer:
On 16/giu/07, at 09:47, Lilian Cipciriuc wrote:
Dear Josef
I found your blog page http://blog.hasslberger.com/ when searching for Pogue carburetter. My interest brought me to find the respective web page. In my turn I try to find more info about increasing the MPG for my Mercedes 210 MiniBus, which is a diesel engine of 3 litres volume.
You mentioned Frank, a canadian chap, and I think I know who you are talking about - Alan Francoer, may be. If I am wrong doesn't matter. I have found some info and as well few blueprints on a page whose address i've cleaned from my browser history, but it can be found, if needed.
So, my topic sounds like this - is there any way to use vaporizing for diesel engines? I am not an motor engineer, if the questions sounds to you weird, I just want to see if there is any way to make my diesel be less consuming of diesel and still powerfull.
All respect
Lilian Cipciriuc
p.s. I stay usually on www.skif.biz - a russian site for alternative research on energy and saving energy
My answer to Lilian:
I have not heard of any possibility for vaporizing diesel oil - the Pogue system seems to be specific for more volatile fuels such as gasoline or ethanol.
To save with diesel engines, some people use vegetable oil that in most countries is cheaper than the diesel they buy at the pump. This can be used in diesel motors but I am not sure what modifications - if any - would be necessary.
Another technology that can be used with diesels is magnetic fuel conditioning, where you have a magnet somewhere on the fuel line that is supposed to make the diesel burn better.
Or you could try one of the additives that decrease friction in the motor by making the oil more effective, or by actually creating a slippery film on metal parts in contact with the oil.
As a long term handling, if you have to stay with a diesel engine, newer ones get more and more efficient. Turbocharged diesels are starting to be better than gasoline engines.

June 18, 2007 4:14 AM| Posted by: Frank E.

To Lilian Cipciriuc,
The web site you mentioned,
www.skif.biz , is all in Russian. Would there be an English version of the site?
Frank, E.

June 26, 2007 10:48 AM| Posted by: Bob

A comment received by email:
I read your article about high mileage carburetors. Although your story has more detail my story is eerily similar. Some time between 1975 and 1980, i read an article about a guy who was working on his lawnmower when the carburetor fell half way off, but it continued to run. He put a fan on it and it ran for 90 hours.
To make a long story short he adapted a similar setup to his full size LTD. Although it took him 3 miles to get up to speed it did average 100 mpg. My memory is a little fuzzy after all these years but the basics of the story are correct. I worked for a transit company between 1975 and 1980 and I had to bring the article to work to show my friend because he didn't, believe me.
Trailer Life ( a well respected magazine) ran a mileage article with this guys setup and one other car with all the latest mileage gismos (like magnets on the fuel line). Anyway each car was carfully inspected and given 2 gallons of gas. The lawnmower guy went 100 out and 100 miles back with a little left over.
I watched that magazine carefully for months and I saw not another word. No follow up articles no letters to the editor, no nothing. It's like he the guy fell off the face of the earth. Anyway if you want to research it, start in Jan. 1980 work backwards. The article will be much closer to 1980 than it will be to 1975. His setup was running on fumes or vapors.
Bob

August 19, 2007 2:34 AM| Posted by: Steve

There are several web pages that translate Russian to English
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
http://www.freetranslation.com/
are a couple of them.
For example, go to the babelfish site, put in the URL and specify the languages to translate from/to.

August 22, 2007 3:37 AM| Posted by: Marc Delit

In one form or another everything is just a boiler that uses gas as a gas in the way it was originally designed do be used.
Old guys I know have been boiling there fuel for many years (years and years. The newness of this is just because your all the next generation that skipped over the info and are finding it all
again. massive fuel economy is logical and reasonable.
Its corporate marketting subterfuge that keeps the billions of people engineered into consuming no less than
3 times the world petrolium
output. The entire world runs on oil and they are consuming at least 3 times the required rate.
This means that over the last 100 years 2/3 the entire world output of oil and petrolium distilates as well as all the pollution that goes alone with all of that is engineered as a pure profit mechanism.
Reduce the entire world output to 1/3 and you have the maximum
usage however the demand accumulated for the past 100 years.....
The math and all the
schematics of all the worlds automobiles show this clearly and you dont have to look deep to find these referances.
the world consumers are blindly accepting what they are given because they are simple minded
compulsive followers who despirately need some form of marketable leadership. Oil and transpertation is that limitting leadership.

November 12, 2007 6:47 PM| Posted by: Keith Baldridge

I have been looking into the pogue carberator system of late. I remembered a news print article from the early seventies I saved and dug it out of the pile of boxes. And interesting thing about the new fuels and additives. A gentleman in Montana designed a little device that you plug into the fuel line under the hood. It cleans all the "garbage" out of the fuel so that it enters the carberator/injection system as pure fuel. Without the Pogue systm, he reported 35mpg with a ford v-10. Have you heard about this? I am digging for more intell. Thanks

November 15, 2007 3:11 AM| Posted by: TANJ

Since there seems to be a problem with piston engines could the wankel rotary engine be used instead?

December 5, 2007 10:55 AM| Posted by: Sepp

TANJ,
a Wankel rotary engine may be a possibility, but perhaps the Quasiturbine described on PESWiki would be better. It can withstand and utilize the rapid expansion of a vaporized fuel, according to its inventor.

December 5, 2007 4:25 PM| Posted by: frank

The Wankle Rotary Engine has the major problem of way too much friction. My experience is that those engines wear out big time.
A much better rotary engine design would be the Rotary V Engine. There were articles about this engine in the following magazine.
Popular Science, August 1974 (5 pages 62-64 & 117)
Popular Science, February 1976 (2 pages)
Mechanix Illustrated, January 1977 (pages 50 & 52
Sports Aviation, February 1986 (page 14-18)
Here are a few web sites to look up.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5601055.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4022168.html
http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/heritage/bricklin/Rotary.htm
Or Google the net for “rotary V engine”
Frank

December 11, 2007 7:27 PM| Posted by: Frank

If I had what it takes to set up a auto manufacturing plant, and could do it "right", I would use the Rotary V Engine, and completely vaporize the gasoline before it reaches the combustion chamber.
Besides the funding,it would take 1. an enormous army to guard against Saboteurs, 2. a staff that wouldn't be afraid to stick their necks out, 3. and guts -- lots of guts!
Others have tried and failed, because that lacked one or more of that stuff.
Frank

December 23, 2007 5:43 AM| Posted by: xoc

This is the kind of stuff that adds the 'nuts' to 'conspiracy'.
Car companies clearly strive to lower fuel use while providing acceptable power. To say they are all limiting their own profitability simply to protect a completely different industry (oil) is absurd.
The oil industry would be fine anyway. More efficient engines would just result in more powerful cars that still used a lot of gas. Do you think the USA likes being dependent on foreign oil?
I am not one of those that dismisses conspiracies simply because they are conspiracies, but this one is just silly.

December 26, 2007 7:33 PM| Posted by: Frank

Dear XOC,
There are overwhelming historical and present day evidences that you may be ignoring or are otherwise ignorant of. Or you may have a vested interest in turning a deaf ear to the truth.
Frank

January 15, 2008 11:30 PM| Posted by: Kelleran.H

i used to wrk for a rebuilding co. when i was young and i used to burn the stators and rotors from starters and alternators to get the copper out...any way the fire had been out for a while and i threw a large coffee can of gas into the burn barrel, well it didn't explode as i was expecting, but it did produce quite a cloud of steam like vapours upon contact...well i had a book of matches in hand...i was young remember! lol, and as i struck the match it instantly ignited the cloud around me!! costing me a few eyebrows, lol thinking back on that...i wonder, if you ran heated tubes under the carb, electric or exhaust...changing only the jetting, would the fuel passing through the heated tubes produce a simalar result, using the engines own vacum to pull the vapours into the cumbustion chambers?...maybe a turbo in that formula would make it an interesting little project, for those of us that like to leave a little rubber at the occasional street light!! lol

January 16, 2008 9:27 PM| Posted by: Sepp for Gerald Rowley

Another email by Gerald Rowley ...
I would like to thank you for putting up info on my patent on your web site. I am in the process of a second patent which is pending for upgrades to the original patent. Presently, I am seeking fleet vehicles in the S.E. Florida area to conduct beta testing. I would like to install the devices for no charge in return for 50% of the price of the fuel saved. So if a company uses $10,000 of fuel a month and I can save that company $3,000 a month that would be a return to me of $1,500 per month. Currently, we would like fleets of Fords and GM's. Gerald Rowley, Save America.

January 20, 2008 5:25 AM| Posted by: Frank

Gasoline does not burn. Only gasoline vapor burns. If it is cold enough that the gasoline is not vaporizing, you can put a lighted match down to the gasoline, and even if you immerse the lighted match into the gasoline, it will extinguish the match. Now if some of the gasoline vaporizes before the match is immersed, the vapor will burn and the heat of the fire will vaporize more gasoline. Depending on how fast the gasoline vaporizes, determines if the flames will be mild or if there is an explosion.
The gasoline additives that are put into today's gasoline are specifically formulated to control the rate of evaporization to make it difficult, if not impossable to completely vaporize the gasoline until after the combustion in an engine and by the catalytic converter.
If one could overcome the effects of the additives, and vaporize all the gasoline before combustion, the catalytic converter would have nothing to do. But then you could get optimum gas mileage, and the "poor" gasoline companies wouldn't sell near as much gasoline, poor things.

January 21, 2008 8:01 PM| Posted by: Frank

If anyone comes up with a way to safely, and completely vaporize the gasoline before the combustion takes place, he could do his fellow man a great service. However, to be effective, he would have to tell as many people as possible how to do it, because if the inventor tried to cash in on the invention, the gasoline powers that be would snuff him out, and right now.
If instead, the inventor would tell as many people as possible, the gasoline powers that be would have way too many people to snuff out, and the movement could then move ahead. The inventor would not get riches for himself, but he would have the satisfaction of helping his fellow man get out of the clutches of those gasoline powers that be, and help the planet reduce the polution caused by the unnecessary over consumption of gasoline.

January 22, 2008 11:02 PM| Posted by: Frank

So you think corn ethanol is a winning alternative to oil? You may want to rethink that idea. According to an article in the February 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics on page 54, it takes 1.3 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol, when you factor in all the costs including the hidden costs of production. Those costs include production of farm chemicals used, farm equipment fuel, transportation fuel, and the fuel required for converting corn to ethanol.
Then there are other costs that haven’t been factored in, such as the higher costs to people of poorer countries who depend on our corn. There are tragic stories that abound if one looked them up.
To me, it looks like the quicker shortcut to energy independence would be to make our cars get better gas millage. Then the only ones “hurt” will be those who can well afford it, i.e. the big oil industry and revenue fattened potentates that sell us oil. Then we could do a grassroots research to better fuels, without the government to muddy the waters with gobs of our tax money.

February 9, 2008 9:06 PM| Posted by: mike

Dear Frank, I live in Northern Iowa, in farm country, where the corn ethanol industry really has taken off. I couldn't agree more with your statement about the corn ethanol. With Pres. Bush signing legislation to subsidize that industry, it appears that the oil companys will again come out ahead in the end result by using more energy to produce that gallon of ethanol. Plus, on the surface, putting Pres. Bush in a win win position with the oil companys and the decieved public.

February 13, 2008 2:56 AM| Posted by: Joseph Fleeman

I had a 1975 Buick Estate station wagon with a 455 CID Engine, it was a 9 passenger 3 bench seats (3rd folded down in back) and it got 12 MPG when I first got it.
It hesitated so i rebuilt the carb and while doing this I discovered an altitude compensator, the way it was made it regulated gas flow through the jets. I closed off the back barrels, the needle valve for the fuel mixture was out 3 1/2 truns I turned it all the way in and back out 1 3/4 turns and it got 25 MPG on the highway(2nd gear went out it shifted from 1st to 3rd) and it never burned the valves, it never had soot in the tail pipe again. I had to let it warm up a little more for it to run better cold, that was the ONLY problem I had. The mixture was just a little too lean at start, but could have been remedied by riching the choke.

March 4, 2008 5:02 PM| Posted by: Marc Delit

The gasoline wasnt gas it was napthia and it evaporated very fast.
not since the corporations handled that evaporation problem the carberator needs to be different.

March 7, 2008 4:45 AM| Posted by: RJ

Excellent information, everyone.
We are now seeing the wide spread economic effects of the ethanol production and use. Corn prices are skyrocketing and that increases the food costs. The problems with the use in automobiles is taken care of with some other equipment that costs a little more. And people say there is a slight difference in power when driving.
I think gasoline gives the biggest bang per quantity. If someone does have a way to increase mileage and maintain power, the marketing should be done "low-key" by word of mouth. If Gerald Rowley's Vapster works as he claims, he should have a sales person contact individual companies and provide the install as an outright sale. He could ask $5,000 for the service by showing the savings per year or per month. Getting $1,500.00 (half the savings) "fee" per month might not be hard to get but who would monitor each companies savings and report it correctly. A simple one-on-one sale is the best way to get the product out there. This will fly under the radar for quite some time and "protect" the inventor from "bullies". This would be similar to "open source" but the inventor could make some money from installing or selling components.
I would like to try the Vapster out here in California. If it does work, I would use the marketing technique above and have this device installed on 200,000 cars before anyone in the general public knew about it.
Saving America by the Grass Roots.

March 8, 2008 8:19 PM| Posted by: Frank

Actually, those high mileage carburetors in the past did use gasoline. However, today's gasoline has additives specifically formulated to prevent complete vaporization before combustion. liquid gasoline does not burn, only what is vaporized will burn. To make a carburetor that really works at top efficiency, it will have to overcome any modern additives present in gasoline. Any device that does not do that is just playing games.

March 14, 2008 10:52 PM| Posted by: Samm

Honestly now, do you really believe that if someone in the world had created a car that obtained 100-200 mph that they wouldn't work to get it into production and make a killing, possibly sell it to a car company... hummmm... say like Ford who's in hugh financial trouble, and don't tell me that ford wouldn't be using the technology today if it existed to bail their company out of trouble.... ya just gotta love conspiracy theories....

March 17, 2008 7:19 PM| Posted by: Frank

Yes, I honestly believe. There is overwhelming evidence that all the auto manufacturers know full well how get ultimate gas mileage and will carry their secrets, even unto bankruptcy and death.
No, I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I go by the facts. I also do not bury my hear in the sand and hope "it" isn't so.

March 22, 2008 11:57 PM| Posted by: mike

Samm, where have you been? You need to step out of your protected world and start really exploring thnigs. What Frank is telling us is true. I know of an invention that makes its own energy and the inventor took this new electrical system to the top. Presidents of the United States, and was turned away. Why? because of "behind closed door" elite world controllers don't want you to know this kind of information. It is their way of controlling the world.

March 22, 2008 11:58 PM| Posted by: mike

Samm, where have you been? You need to step out of your protected world and start really exploring thnigs. What Frank is telling us is true. I know of an invention that makes its own energy and the inventor took this new electrical system to the top. Presidents of the United States, and was turned away. Why? because of "behind closed door" elite world controllers don't want you to know this kind of information. It is their way of controlling the world.

March 23, 2008 9:33 PM| Posted by: Rick

This tag may be closed but I thought I would chime in. In 1983 I did a school project. I had done some reading on the Pogue carburetor. I also did some reading on Smokey Yunick's Fiero. I decided to attempt what Pogue had done. I used a 78 Chevy 400 CID pickup as my test vehicle. I created a vaporizing carb using the vehicle exhaust as my vaporizor made out of stainless steel. After putting everything together, I could run the vehicle at idle for 15 minutes on a pint of gasoline using the standard carburetor. When switching to the vaporizing carburetor, I ran the same vehicle for 1 hour before shutting it down and there was still fuel in the pint container. I know it works. I saw it for myself. After that, I ran out of money to refine this carburetor. Conspiracy, logic, science, you call it what you want. I does work.

April 5, 2008 6:24 PM| Posted by: What the heck!

someone's been removing my posts.
I'm, like, the most qualified expert here.
O.K. Someone else thinks I'm too much competition again.
Try growing some skill and then you'll be number one too just like me. See how that works?
Delit.

April 5, 2008 6:28 PM| Posted by: Marc Delit

For the poster above my set:
this whole issue rises from federal laws that support sanctioning (or killing) anyone who propduces transpertaion that gains energy savings above the national limit. Exxon and chevron get thier bang for the buck.

April 14, 2008 2:19 AM| Posted by: Matt

Hey folks,
I've been interested in high mileage thought and have experimented with vapor concepts on and off since back in the mid nineties. Back then I was going to school for the aircraft mechanics license. I remember distinctly in fuel metering class my instructor telling us that the average aircraft engine is 13% efficient. I remember thinking afterward, "That's 87% waste!" A lot of room for improvement for sure.
After that I started looking into high mileage claims, ads, etc. and it's kept coming back to me over the years. I remember being particularily impressed with the Pogue story - just think of all the energy we may have wasted since 1936... In my reading I heard that a Pogue type carburetor used with the new and 'improved' catalytically cracked gasoline we have today, acts more like a refinery turning the additives in the fuel into varnishes that quickly plug the metering orifices.
So, do we have any fuels around that are still a pure substance? In response to that question some years back I came to focus on ethanol. This is a pure fuel, produced by distillation just as I believe was the gasoline of Pogue's day. It has 1 (one) boiling point of 179 degrees F unlike our gasoline of today which has ten or more. Why couldn't we put together a Pogue type carburetor with pure ethanol, circumventing the problems with the polluted gasoline? I remember reading in one of the 'Secrets of the 200mpg Carburetor' books by Alan Wallace about an engineer in the midwest who made about 100 mpg in something like a Ford Pinto with a vapor carburetor using pure ethanol. These are a couple of the reasons I started thinking about this fuel. It'd sure be fun do have a vehicle that gets 100 mpg with a fuel that I can actually make myself if need be. I've enjoyed reading some of your entries - keep lookin' up!

April 19, 2008 8:44 PM| Posted by: frank

This is news to me --- that pure ethanol can be used in a high mileage carburetor. If that is so, that would make it more efficient even though it takes more than a gallon of gasoline (or whatever) to produce a gallon of ethanol. If you find out more about this, let us know.
If anyone comes up with a carburetor that gets high millage with today's fuels, don't expect to make your fortune on it and keep your life -- the big guys would snuff you out like you were a bug. Best to perfect your thing secretly and then let everybody know how to do it. Maybe you could sell a small book. But don't tell anyone you have a working model --- unless you want your car blown up in the middle of the night.

April 19, 2008 10:39 PM| Posted by: Keith

Hello to All.....
In the early 80's I bought a"1974Buick Estate Wagon " with all the options, it also had the "BIG" engine, a 455 cid.V8.
after awhile I got real tired of 8 to 9 Mpg after a fresh tune-up I started to look around for a system or widget that might help. then I rememberd from My Navy training as an ADJ, thats an Avaition Machinist Mate Jets, that we used water injection and alchole injection on the Prat & Whittney Motors on the P2V Bombers I/We worked on/flew in.Water injection is whats needed,found at the local Speed shop in My area, after some major adjustment to the trassmision, racing/towing shift kit, realy big tires, 9-50 15's the largest that would fit in the wheel wells, splitting the exhaust from a single 1.5" dia. to dual 2.0",changing the carb and manifold from a single two BBl. to a Holly 590Cfm 4 BBl.
I then installed the Water Injection System on the engine . Re adjusted the timing from the factory setting of 2 dgrs. retard to 14.5 dgrs advance. all this took around 3 months to get done. When I was done I got aprox. 19 MPG fresh off a tune-up. this is a 6000 lb. tank. The performance was also radicly improved. All this cost around 2500/3000K to complete..I have not thought much of Detroit scince......
Patroleum Fuel and all of the Pertroleum by products are the most incidius drug that has ever been foisted on Humanity.
All things in moderation.We have alternitive fuels and porducts availible, We have been sold a "Bill of Goods" that We my not be able to overcome... But we need to try....Keep up the good work, Keep us informed....
KWW

April 19, 2008 11:13 PM| Posted by: Keith

If anyone living in the Portland/Vancouver area is intrested in trying to build something of "High Milage" type auto ???
let Me know, drop Me an E-mail....or let Me know through this site.
KWW

April 22, 2008 4:49 AM| Posted by: canadianmonster

This site gives more pictures of the fish and pogue carburetor.
http://www.sjvls.org/bens/bf012fc.htm
Also google paul m brown of Idaho who invented a carburetor and patented a battery using strontium 90. Paul brown died in 2001 - had many death threats and his mother inlaws car was pipe bombed.

May 16, 2008 7:07 AM| Posted by: Steve in Seattle

wow... lots of people here (or maybe 1 author posing as several people?) need to get back on their meds. As a biochemist I can verify that the energy content of gasoline molecules are the SAME in vapour and liquid form... NO DIFFERENCE in complete combustion.
The issue with increasing MPG is that only about 20% of the chemical energy contained in gasoline is transmitted to the drivetrain as kenetic energy. Reducing weight, rolling resistance, and air resistance can make MPG gains there, but only marginally.
The idea of harvesting ALL the chemical energy with a mechanical system like the IC engine is physically IMPOSSIBLE. So yes... a 4 to 5 times improvement in MPG without addressing the losses (due to inertia and drag listed above) is IMPOSSIBLE.
While there are ways to improve the IC fuel effiency, vaporizing gasoline will have minimal gains (as referenced earlier in SAE papers).
Proposing an outrageous conspiracy plot and then saying... "well I can't prove it anymore because gas is different" or "well the computer chips are different so magnets dont' work anymore" is complete lunacy.
For those who REALLY want to see MPG gains, get light alloy wheels, allumunm hat 2-piece brake rotors, lose weight off the car (rotating and unsprung weight are the best places to start), and get LARGE diameter, but moderate width tires. Wide contact patches have less rolling resistance than narrow ones (seems counter-intuitive until you realize energy losses come from tread deformation in narrow tires... Tour De France cyclists figured this out long ago).
A high compression engine can help reclaim power, as can a turbo design which can be converted to or supplimented with propane. Likewise, diesel has about 10% more energy per gallon than gasoline... and most of them come as turbos already (making water and propane injection easy).
Beyond that things get dicey, but some are absolute... 2WD will be more efficent than 4WD. Likewise, a solid-rear axle will be more efficent than a IRS set up or even a FWD (which use CV joints in half-shafts). Manual tranny's will be about 5% more effienct (in the 20% of kenetic energy that goes to the drivetrain), as will smaller gears (i.e. a 7" 10-bolt rear is about 5% more efficent than a 8.9" 12-bolt or even 7% more than a Ford 9" rear).
Lots of options out there... but a 100 MPG truck just isn't gonna happen... its a physical limit of WEIGHT, and loss of heat in the mechanical set up of a 4-stroke IC piston engine.

May 16, 2008 11:26 PM| Posted by: PAUL

I think everyone is missing the boat on this issue. The Pogue carb. and all others that work don't vaporize the liquid gas, if they did the compression on the I.C. engine would compress it back to a liquid. The reason they work is because of the thermal catalytic cracking process. It refines the gasoline into natural gas. Natural gas when compressed by a I.C. engine remains a gas.
The combustion process of the natural gas is near 100%, heat and pollution are greatly reduced, over liqiud fuels.

May 18, 2008 3:11 PM| Posted by: chris

All i know is...i owned a 1981 Toyota Corolla (4 cylinder, 70hp engine) that got over 30mpg highway and i never did a thing to it maintenance wise...and pretty sure the previous owners didnt either. I paid $600 cash for it and drove the hell out of it.
fast foward to a 2008 Corolla with around 130 hp and gets an ESTIMATED (thats not the REAL world as we know) 38 mpg highway and 27 city. Both cars weigh within 100 lbs. of each other. One has presumably benefited from more than 25 years of engineering and scientific progress than the other.
Now, i know what some naysayers will point out: "the new car has more power, better acceleration, etc. blah blah blah". Need i remind you that both cars weigh nearly the same, and horsepower is not an issue because as you may know, the top HP rating is at given RPMS....so its safe to say that at lower RPMS less HP is being produced so i think the point is moot.
My 81' corolla was carburated....the new one has the fancy computerized fuel injection thats supposedly so superior. I beg of you...superior in what 'real world' way? Can you make a believer out of my pocket book or my bank account when spouting your scientific jargon about how superior it is? Yes...go ahead and talk about shaving weight off here, getting different wheels and tires, blah blah blah...then go back and look at cars made in the 1930 that were like tanks, weighed easily in excess of five THOUSAND pounds, delivered usually between 150-250 HP and still got over 20 mpg (in some cases more).
Dont be an apologist for the system please. I UNDERSTAND why rich people want to be more rich and powerful. They dont exist to do anyone any favors....whats conspiratorial about that? Its called selfish human nature...or self interest...or whatever else you wanna call it....but its just FACT. People with power and money want to keep it...and sometimes no matter what it takes...i think history shows that in spades. It just may be that as the general population has progressively gained access to more and more information that the 'power elite' has had to develop different strategies for maintaining their power.....and those strategies are not published on the front page....they are kept secret.....as MOST personal ambitions are. And since some of you seem to be so anti 'conspiracy' why dont you revisit the dictionary on that word....it refers to 'plans made in secret to do something unseemly, unethical, illegal or the like'. Well....some folks happen to think its unethical to withhold information...and such withholding would then by definition constitute a genuine 'conspiracy'.
Seems strange that every day in the judicial system people are being brought up on various charges of conspiracy.....and yet in common discourse if you use word people immediately retreat to their programmed knee-jerk response. How sad.
I think even 'dumb' uneducated people know when theyre being screwed....and no amount of cleverly manipulated science, sophisticated speeches and various other propaganda tools can change that.
a link:
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/miscellaneous/100-years-of-improvement/

May 19, 2008 6:56 PM| Posted by: Marc Delit

I thinought that's what I started the ball rolling about? Wasnt the above post obvious the everyone? if not, why not?
if in doubt just use 1 head on a v8 for compressed air and the other head to recompress it. steam can be made from water and recompressed in altrernating cylinders using the second set of valves on the other head.
destribute the piston action evenly and add a n electric air compressor to add torque.
You can substitute the v8 extra head setup for an a/c compressor on the exhaust side after an intercooler to cool and compress the exhaust air or steam into reusable air or water.
So many was so little time so many copycats without any idea why.....
Just another of my many original ideas to copy and ponder to one another about.
No doubt you'll be breaking off into a useless nuclear steam generator tangent that serves no healthy purpose.....

May 19, 2008 7:04 PM| Posted by: Marc Delit

or you can alternate HV repulsion/attraction using a piston assembly the way motors are made.
you can butt an a/c motor up to a rare earth magnet array in a planetary set up arround the motor similarly to the way drill planetary gears are alinged in a circle around the central rotating shaft.
supply power from the planetary generators to the motor via voltage converstion.
If your intelligent you can come up with a way to make any motor VERY efficiant and have NO magnetic friction on the generator's side like I have. Only a little normal bearing friction means very little friction to stop the motor from rotating forever at any speed it can handle.

May 19, 2008 7:18 PM| Posted by: Marc Delit

Normal generators (or alternators), when active, attract the stator via its magnetic poles. this attraction makes the shaft hard to turn.

[Its like explaining the obvious to 2nd graders.]
Remove that friction and you have no loss in power via heat/torgue exchange.
You can also add something else to any circuit's set up so you dont waist needless electrons to the dum xss negative pole or send them needlessly adrift as emf......
if you dont waist your torque, heat electron energy and either reuse it or not get involved with dealing with using the design that created the wasit in the first place you'll have a better time travelling and a lesser time doing what you all do now.
Align planetary generators the same pattern similar to drill planetary grears.
Make your generators differnt from every copycat in the world so that they use up little or no friction. supply that power up to the motor and Just add 1 normal 12 volt battery to stary that crxp.
you can even go off the wall and wild crazy to add a induction gear transmission to the generator's array to speed it up and get alot more current.
Hint: use big wire.

May 22, 2008 10:38 AM| Posted by: Frank

OK, Paul (May 16 post)How does one convert today's gasoline into natural gas?
Frank

May 22, 2008 6:32 PM| Posted by: PAUL

Frank,(May 22 post) From the research I,ve done there are 2 things to do to make natural gas from today's fuel 1: Coat your Pogue type carb. on the inside with Platinum.
2: If you get the fuel hot enough the additives the oil companies put in the gas won't hinder the thermal catalytic cracking process. The reason for the Platinum is the fuel has lead (yes unleaded fuel has up to 70% of the lead of the old leaded fuel) lead is a anti-catalist, it will coat the Pogue type carb. and stop the thermal catalytic cracking process.

May 22, 2008 10:52 PM| Posted by: Mr. Delit

Frank and paul both,
Are you kidding me....
Do you really think your both serious.
Your posting duplicate info found in other people's posts and just repeating them over again as if the info is yours.
You disregaurd all other rational material but what you've duplicated from others in your own posts.
Quite it and get serious.
Everyone! These guys are either the same person or just plain copycats.

May 23, 2008 8:14 AM| Posted by: Frank

Mr. Delit, We are not the same person. We are not know it alls. We are only searching for the answers.
If you would learn how to spell, someone might take you more seriously.
Paul, I think your on to something, and I'm all ears. Would the carb have to have all the coiled passages the Pogue carb has, or is a short cut workable?

May 23, 2008 3:13 PM| Posted by: Frank

Paul, What temperature would have to be maintained in a Pogue type carb to maintain the proper, or workable level of activity?

May 23, 2008 6:30 PM| Posted by: PAUL

Frank, I have read what temperature it takes but I don't remenber what it is. I will keep looking and get back to you. I just don't know about your other question.

June 3, 2008 7:04 PM| Posted by: Frank

Paul,
Have you found anything yet about the required temperature to make the Platinum do it's job? I've searched the net a bit myself, but did find the required degrees.
One site showed Platinum bars mounted within the combustion chamber but insulated electricly from other metals. I don't see how that could completely vaporise quick enough or cause the complete combustion of the gasoline.
What do you say about it?

June 3, 2008 9:56 PM| Posted by: Paul

Frank,
The best I can find is 500 to 600 degrees F. Check out www.fuelvapors.com/index.htm
This is the best system I,ve seen in a long time.

June 6, 2008 12:04 AM| Posted by: Marc Delit

Pogue didnt use gas at all.
His working temp was low.
You only think he did because he provided for it seriously in only some of his detail.
You all figure it out in your own while I use it while I drive everyday.
Bye.
Working Temp = 4xx
..and you dont have to use platinum.
Keep on truckin for another way to repeat the other guys mistakes......

June 6, 2008 12:07 AM| Posted by: Marc Delit

The 4xx number is for gas and what your drifting toward.
The lautca working temp for his formula was under 350 deg.

June 6, 2008 5:52 AM| Posted by: aaron wallace

with all the talk about additives in gas making it impossible to vaporize.. why not brew your own ethanol and try it?

June 7, 2008 6:06 AM| Posted by: Frank

All right Mr. Delit,
If you're so sure of yourself, give us a blueprint of your secessful carburetor, or method of low gasoline consumption. What kind of gasoline milage does your rig achive.

June 7, 2008 6:20 AM| Posted by: Frank

Mr. Wallace,
The experts say that it takes 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
Unless, of course you're smarter than the experts and have a more economical way to make ethanol.
Please enlighten us.

June 7, 2008 10:06 AM| Posted by: Brain

I live in New Zealand and in the early 80s I got hold of some information written by Ray Covey, that got me thinking and I found that the heat (BTHus) available in petrol was quite high. In the 70s and 80s we had a push from our government for a switch to LPG and CNG, natural gas compressed to about 3500psi, an old truck that I had at the time was converted to CNG but could be switched back to petrol, the power difference was negligible but the BTHus was way lower than petrol, so to all those who say that you cant get up to 6 times fuel efficiency, do your math again. The other thing to remember about our beloved :) IC engine is that it was designed to run on a vapor or gas not a fluid, so LPG and CNG will always burn more efficiently than petrol but there is no way of increasing their efficiency like you can when vaporising petrol.
In NZ we are starting to make ethanol from dairy factory waste, don't know how much oil goes into that.

June 7, 2008 10:34 AM| Posted by: Brain

To add to my previous comment about the BTHus in petrol, here is a quote from http://www.himacresearch.com/books/secret3.html
From the very start of combustion engine technology, leading scientists complained about the very low efficiency of motors that were mass produced. The automotive engineers claim it is around 20% efficiency. They claim 35% heat lost in the exhaust, 35% heat lost in the radiator and 10% lost in overcoming friction and wind resistance. Therefore 20% in propulsion.
However there is another way to look at this formula with amounts and conversion factors well accepted in the engineering community. It is known that a medium size car that gets about 20 M.P.G. can maintain 60 M.P.H. on about 12 H.P. To produce this electrically, it would take about 10 Kilo Watt of power, figuring 746 Watts per H.P.
10,000 W = 13.4 H.P. 1 B.T.U. of heat is produced by 1 .K.W. in 1 second
1 K.W. X 60 seconds X 60 minutes = 3,600 B.T.U.
10 K.W.H. of electricity = 36,000 B.T.U. of heat
10 K.W.H. = 12 H.P. X 1 hour @ 60 M.P.H. = 60 miles travel
There is approximately 20,000 B.T.U. per pound of gasoline and about 8 lb. per gallon. If you got 20 M.P.G. at 60 M.P.H. it would take 3 gallons for 60 miles
20,000 B.T.U. X 8 Lb. per X 3 gallons = 480,000 B.T.U.s
480,000 by gasoline 36,000 by electricity
This works out at factor 13.3 to 1 or 7.5 % efficiency
A car at 100% efficiency should get 13.3 times farther, 266 miles per gallon. Now I am not trying to sell electric cars. I just want you to understand there is tremendous room for improvement. If the numbers are correct and seeing as you can get these figures and formula from many technical sources they probably are, then 100 M.P.G. would be a true 40% efficiency. About 5 times better than what we are getting now. It is quite within the realms of reality and not too good to be true.
Once again, to disbelievers, do the math!!

June 7, 2008 10:57 PM| Posted by: Frank

Brain,
Have you used that information to design a workable carburetor for today's gasoline? Would you share it with us?

June 10, 2008 2:09 AM| Posted by: Frank

Paul, I found on a website that to get around the effects of the additives, the gasoline has to be vaporized at 800 degrees. 900 degrees is too high and 700 degrees is too low.
Then you have to have a catch reservoir in the exhaust system to store the additives, which are very toxic, and dispose of them in a "safe" manor.

June 14, 2008 4:59 AM| Posted by: Frank

My cousin sent me this in an email. Maybe Sepp will want to post the pictures.

The Compressed Air Car developed by Motor Development International (MDI) Founder Guy Negre might be the best thing to have happened to the motor engine in years.
The $12,700 CityCAT, one of the planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor uni ts. MDI says it should cost only around $2 to fill the car up with 340 liters of air!
The Air Car will be starting production relatively soon, thanks to India 's TATA Motors. Forget corn! There's fuel, there's renewable fuel, and then there's user-renewable fuel! What can be better than air?

June 16, 2008 5:11 PM| Posted by: Sepp

Frank,
the air car has been in the making for several years now. It has met obstacles time and time again, and was delayed for this reason or that. With the air car inventor French formula I mechanic Guy Negre having made an agreement with TATA motors of India, and getting ready to produce in Australia, perhaps the car will soon be available, but I reserve my enthusiasm for when I actually see one.
For pictures of the air car, you can search Google images.

June 20, 2008 9:03 AM| Posted by: eric c hoard

Is this stuff for real or not I have read a whole bunch of articles about this and I'm hearing it might work but sacrificing engine performance and such. If this is truly possible I have a friend who would be able to do this. Is it worth bothering with?

June 20, 2008 4:02 PM| Posted by: frank

Earl, If it is done right, there would be no loss of performance. There are a lot of details to do to combat the effects of todays gas/additives --- see my post June 10 for instance.
However, don't expect to market your device. The powers that be will make sure you won't. They won't stop at anything.

June 21, 2008 2:23 PM| Posted by: Robert Herndon

Nice work....Check your mail for some information I sent you. I think there is a much simpler solution to the vapor principle...Robert

June 22, 2008 4:57 AM| Posted by: Frank

Robert, Who did you send the info to? If you sent it to me, I don't think I got it. Frank

June 30, 2008 8:06 PM| Posted by: Frank

Robert Herndon, Sir,
I'd sure like to know what is your simple solution to the vapor principle. Frank

July 3, 2008 6:51 AM| Posted by: JR

IS IT STILL POSSIBLE TO GET ENOUGH VAPOR TO RUN AN ENGINE WITH ALL OF THE ADDITIVES IN THIS GAS TODAY?WHAT IS THE BOILING POINT OF GAS? THANKS

July 3, 2008 7:38 PM| Posted by: Frank

JR,
The "boiling point" temperature depends a lot on the pressure to which the gasoline is subjected. As far as vaporization is concerned, the boiling point may or may not have anything to do with vaporizaton.
Would you tell us of your insights into gasoline mileage?

July 9, 2008 11:02 PM| Posted by: Jay

I have an ignorant question i thought i might throw out there. I was working with a man who was telling me about his dad who grew up in Winnipeg and remembers a man with a prototype carb that could get upwards of 100 miles to the gallon. At the same time i was taking a forklift course and they said that propane was more combustible than gas. I went home to investigate the carb and found this site. Although the carb seems plausible, according to what I've read on this site, is all that was done with the prototype is vaporize gas which is the form of propane we'd burn anyway. So that being the case, wouldn't we have crazy gas mileage with propane?

August 9, 2008 3:27 AM| Posted by: James Blankman

I have an ignorant answer. I think it lies in the energy content of both substances. http://www.propanecarbs.com/propane.html

August 17, 2008 5:11 AM| Posted by: Don

Ok I just read all the above post.. I am creating a Gas Vaporizor... I have some questions.
1. will heat from exhaust cause gas to explode without a spark.. I know its dumb ( Im just learning)
2.Is there something to put in gas other than heat to break down the additives in gasoline.
3. Im not trying to run the vehicle 100% on vapors just suppliment the existing throttle body injection on my vehicle.
Wish me luck.
Thanks in Advance Don

August 25, 2008 4:27 PM| Posted by: matt

use alcohol instead of gas it vaporizes better than gas
check out this video
http://dutman.vo.llnwd.net/o15/piccwin/piccwinhi.wmv

August 25, 2008 6:31 PM| Posted by: matt

The experts say that it takes 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
who are these experts? Are they connected to big oil?
How does Brazil run there whole county on alcohol? Brazil does not import one barrel of oil.
http://www.permaculture.com/

October 27, 2008 9:58 AM| Posted by: Scott

To all those wondering about the fuel additives and the problems in this area:
There are ways to get around this problem, I will have to re-read this as I think I can answer a few questions for some folks, but has been a few days since then and am just now making my first post.
Some of you may know,or may not there is a process other than just TCC. This process is simply "straight" TC. That is to say, straight Thermal Cracking. If you can achieve this, than the additives will not matter.
However it is a bit of an engineering feat I am working on. You must go to red hot temps..1500-1600F.
Yeah, I hear everyone, not only crazy, but most of you are thinking IF it doesn't blow than it will give up the low ends..and very dangerous...well, not exactly.
In this regard the fuel reactor would need to be completely isolated, perhaps some reasonably thick stainless steel, along with a powerful electrical element, like that out of an electric dryer. As long as there is no oxygen in the system it will not go "bang". Also, when heated in stages, should get all of the fuel converted into synthetic Natural Gas, Methanols.
This is a simple way to describe a complex system, but picture a flash tube boiler with a heat element, fuel enclosed going up,around the coil, and back, finally out to get the most of your heat transfer. If this is done properly, the fuel will not re-vaporize until it hits 1000 psi, or -250F respectfully.
I think a 3 stage unit would work better in this, but if you are experimenting with TCC, one should start off with Naphtha, since it does not contain additives, even though it does not have near the BTU content.
The question of the electrical element TC method is mostly in my mind, the power going into it to do this..will it cancel out? The "experts" say our engines are around 20% efficient, really they are closer to 7.5%..and with the topic of the technology working well, should make a 40% efficient engine, or thereabouts.
Bruce McBurney is an expert on this subject, and his book is available for $20. But he originally posted the full text online FIRST..I have what I think is his first one, dated 1994. I am allowed to redistribute according to the text, and anyone doing this should read it.
Email me h2o4go@yahooDOTcom if you want his original full text of his book if you cannot find it, I will try to see where I found it and post here. You can find a part1 and part2 of his radio interviews at blogtalkradioDOTcom if you search his name, it would be hosted by James Robey from the Kentucky Water Fuel Museum.
He talks also about a device called the "Condensator" which he has a manual of and free old design on his website, himacresearchDOTcom
As soon as I get a full version of adobe I will give my design away, as this is a cheap to build CV valve "trap" with a catalyst.
He also sells a manual by Richard Clair called the Clairmax manual...this involves straight TC.
Take care guys, and good luck, but be careful in every way..I only just recently fount this site..and am interested to join the topic if you guys are still interested in talking about getting back at big brother any little way we can to improve our lives a bit.
Regards,
Scott

October 31, 2008 7:19 PM| Posted by: Frank

Very good, Scott. I will be sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for the results of your farther research.
Frank

November 6, 2008 5:36 AM| Posted by: Scott

To Don,
It is not likely that petrol will explode from exhaust heat alone unless your engine is running excessively hot. Of course there are other factors.
I am guessing if you are building something just to vaporize, you plan on using the wasted exhaust heat. Keep this in mind, Gasoline has a Multi-Range boiling point (has nothing to do with autoig nition or the flashpoint, make sure and get a good fuel characteristics chart that tell the properties of fuel you need to know. Check books at the library or try to ind an accurate source on the net)
The boiling point of Gasoline is generally (starting at) 120F all the way to 420F and sometimes closer to 500F depending. Of course use safety measures and incorporate them in your design.
Remember, vaporizing, even if you can achieve this completely will not keep the fuel a vapor. When fresh steel or whatever catalyst you use (aware of it or not) to "crack" the molecules and keep them reformed..it can work just on that basis to get your "100 mpg" more or less. But the thing is, the additives are designed to stop this by gunking up the catalys so-to-speak.
So what you likely end up doing (or are getting, rather) is fractionalization..so you are merely vaporizing again. This is where most people that achieved super mileage at a time went scratching their head..I was one of them.
Through another researchers experiences, it was proven to me that by just vaporizing, the Gasoline goes right back to its liquid state under compression! However, if the fuel is fully reformed, it does not, and stays a low range low 100F side SINGULAR boiling point with only one carbon molecule to deal with, and "wants" to burn quick and dynamic. Also, it doesn't go back to a liquid once reformed unless it hit sub-artic temps (around -250F) or extreme high pressures (around 1000psi).
As far as additives, I know of nothing you can put into the fuel, but that does not mean there is nothing. Another researcher was experimenting with straight thermal cracking and was able to get the fuel to reform between 750-850F with the introduction of "..a little bit of hydrogen in the system.." but had no way to measure how much, though he said it was not much. He got his from a supplier, in a suitable tank for experimenting..
One way around the additives that I have heard has had some success, though I do not know to what extent..was to run the fuel through activated coconut charcoal first..I'm sure any activated charcoal, perhaps even wood charcoal would be able to have the same filtering effect.
Fractionalization is basically a term I picked up which to me means, you vaporize the light 110F and up a ways..but can't get all of the fuel to vaporize (meaning the heavier carbon molecules, closer to 400F) and end up with some left over fuel in the vaporizer that you can't get to burn..and this is where most of the energy is I am betting, or at least a good deal of it.
Also, if you want to do this just for assistance experimentation, make sure and help yourself ou and include water injection, even if it is simply a jar full of water connected to a vacuum port. The Pogue carb only worked on rainy or high humidity days from what I hear..and this makes sense as when the Oil companies refine crude into all the other various hydrocarbons, a tremendous amount of water is used in the process..as well as heat and a catalyst.
You need water or high humidity conditions for TCC to work..water injection doesn't hurt anything, and can be very simple and beneficial on its own.
I once made a crude vaporizer..my first, with no heat other than whatever it got from the engine. I used the "wicking principle" (I think it is called Chromotography or something) by using an air-tight box..military surplus ammo can in my case on a 320 ford, and on opposite ends at the same height, caddy-corner to each other so the fuel would have to go in an "S" type pattern, or something like that. I used about 1 and 3/4 inch inside diameter on both inlet and outlet. Doesn't matter which is in and out as both sides are identical..used this as the only fuel source and the carb/throttle body only for metering air. The "wicks" were industrial type cleanup mats, like used in a shop to clean up a big coolant or oil spill. I guess some people call the "elephant diapers" but some are different shapes, made into tubes and such..I got the flat ones.
I carefully made a template so it would fit just a little oversized, and so that the tops, all being stached upright, would be as flat as possible at the radius (middle) of the inlet/outlet. So each of these were stacked in tight, and it was a pain to do that part..the inlet/outlet were steel and welded leaving about 2 inches from the top.
I think I used about a cupful of fuel and after cranking a bit the engine did start, and I had to turn my idle down some..I think it was probably running lean...the amount of fuel in the setup is how lean/or rich you run.
The engine ran and the car drove..I had a bit of a dead spot if I tromped on the pedal, I figure this is bc of the lack of an accelerator pump..but it wasn't as much as I excpected..I should have retarded the timing, b/c I drove on my lil test strip which is 8 miles one way, 16 round-trip. I had a backfire and evidently through the intake about a mile and a half back from where I left..so I dont know about mileage as my carbie caught fire..lucky there wasn't much fuel and I always carry an extinguisher. And the old car, well it is older, so the only thing I needed to fix was a bit of wiring which I am no stranger to.
I imagine this carb could be made safe(er) with some sort of backpressure or one way check valve..butterfly valve like on scuba setups, and an external float chamber to regulate fuel level..I'm 99% sure leaning out caused the backfire via intake, and if timing was retarded little more, probably wouldn't have happened until the mix got leaner. I went on to other ideas even though I always wanted to try a carb using that principle again, it was just fun..Oh, the thing was mounted in the engine compartment and I had the stock sealed breather, so I adapted it to take plastic PVC type ram-air hose so the breather was full of vapor from pulling the air from across the wicks, as the other side had hose going out through the grill..the engine pumping air until there was enough vapor to start and run. Dangerous carb though, beware..this is why I only use as little fuel possible in testing anything..besides, if you end up with 100 MPG or more, who needs more than a few gallons? 5 is surely enough.
Look at the Russell Bourke engine from back in the 20s-30s and the Melvin Vaux engines..if you do not know about those, they are what should have been mass produced, as they used much more efficient principles than any of our modern junk. Also, as I understand it, they were designed so that the piston stayed at or near TDC for 45 degrees of the power stroke? This would give the fuel time to go thru the layers and burn. You can find info on them and even some enthusiasts have sites with CAD files..but if you want any other than a single cyl. model plane type, you have to build it yourself.
One last thing regarding exhaust heat, all the guys that I know of that achieved super high mileage via vaporizing/thermal cracking, their engines ran cool..so cool in fact that from what was reported on Tom Ogles car, the radiator water was only luke warm. So forget about having enough heat from exhaust unless you switch from a normal setup to an efficient one as temp drops. This is why I think an electrical element would be better for experimenting..more consistant..another I heard that achieved reported his manifolds were only 350F ! So , forget about a conventional heater, LOL. Oh, if that were all we needed to worry about, haha.
Hope this helps, take care guys!

November 6, 2008 5:42 AM| Posted by: Scott

I couldn't post this at first, perhaps b/c it is too long? I'm going o try to post it in two parts, here goes..
To Don,
It is not likely that petrol will explode from exhaust heat alone unless your engine is running excessively hot. Of course there are other factors.
I am guessing if you are building something just to vaporize, you plan on using the wasted exhaust heat. Keep this in mind, Gasoline has a Multi-Range boiling point (has nothing to do with autoig nition or the flashpoint, make sure and get a good fuel characteristics chart that tell the properties of fuel you need to know. Check books at the library or try to ind an accurate source on the net)
The boiling point of Gasoline is generally (starting at) 120F all the way to 420F and sometimes closer to 500F depending. Of course use safety measures and incorporate them in your design.
Remember, vaporizing, even if you can achieve this completely will not keep the fuel a vapor. When fresh steel or whatever catalyst you use (aware of it or not) to "crack" the molecules and keep them reformed..it can work just on that basis to get your "100 mpg" more or less. But the thing is, the additives are designed to stop this by gunking up the catalys so-to-speak.
So what you likely end up doing (or are getting, rather) is fractionalization..so you are merely vaporizing again. This is where most people that achieved super mileage at a time went scratching their head..I was one of them.
Through another researchers experiences, it was proven to me that by just vaporizing, the Gasoline goes right back to its liquid state under compression! However, if the fuel is fully reformed, it does not, and stays a low range low 100F side SINGULAR boiling point with only one carbon molecule to deal with, and "wants" to burn quick and dynamic. Also, it doesn't go back to a liquid once reformed unless it hit sub-artic temps (around -250F) or extreme high pressures (around 1000psi).
As far as additives, I know of nothing you can put into the fuel, but that does not mean there is nothing. Another researcher was experimenting with straight thermal cracking and was able to get the fuel to reform between 750-850F with the introduction of "..a little bit of hydrogen in the system.." but had no way to measure how much, though he said it was not much. He got his from a supplier, in a suitable tank for experimenting..
One way around the additives that I have heard has had some success, though I do not know to what extent..was to run the fuel through activated coconut charcoal first..I'm sure any activated charcoal, perhaps even wood charcoal would be able to have the same filtering effect.
Fractionalization is basically a term I picked up which to me means, you vaporize the light 110F and up a ways..but can't get all of the fuel to vaporize (meaning the heavier carbon molecules, closer to 400F) and end up with some left over fuel in the vaporizer that you can't get to burn..and this is where most of the energy is I am betting, or at least a good deal of it.
Also, if you want to do this just for assistance experimentation, make sure and help yourself ou and include water injection, even if it is simply a jar full of water connected to a vacuum port. The Pogue carb only worked on rainy or high humidity days from what I hear..and this makes sense as when the Oil companies refine crude into all the other various hydrocarbons, a tremendous amount of water is used in the process..as well as heat and a catalyst.
You need water or high humidity conditions for TCC to work..water injection doesn't hurt anything, and can be very simple and beneficial on its own.

November 6, 2008 6:59 AM| Posted by: Scott

I can't seem to post..too many characters??
Anyway I wanted to post to Don to help answer some of hi questions if I could..but lets see if this goes through.
Someone mentioned about the Lawnmower Guy that went 100 miles one way and back on 2 gallons..That was Tom Ogle from El Paso. Contrary to what Delit said, he DID use Petrol, but it was straight Wellhead Gas, No impurities, straight from the refinery.
To XOC, and Steve (The sheep of Seattle) just because something falls under what I would (and the dictionary would as well) define as a conspiracy, does NOT make it a theory.
Steve touts himself as a brilliant Biochemist....nice to toss titles around but nobody said the could get ALL the chemical potential..as to the energy being the same, again you miss the point by keeping your mind inside the box, just like you paid the nice school to teach you. It is NOT an energy quotion problem, it is a time-release of that energy problem..in other words, you've gotta be done and dusted in 5-7 milliseconds b/c that is all the time you have in the junk engines that are mass produced in the given power stroke.
IMPOSSIBLE my foot. TCC can still be done with Naphtha last I checked. It reminds me of a know-it-all Physics professor saying a magnet does no work and no work is done when you pick up and move a big chunk of Iron with it, yet, use any physical or mechanical method and they all nod like chickens pecking at corn.
Look at some of the early engine designers who knew there was a problem (like, we are using a steam engine to burn something that is not at all a gas) with the way fuel was being used..Russell Bourke and Melvin Vaux, to name a couple..those piston engines were way more efficient merely by design in every way..including giving more time in the power stoke near TDC to go through the layers of the fuel, since our junk engines now, which were taken before even finished from Dr.Otto, use mostly mechanical work to get the fuel to burn at all. If MOST of the energy were used, the engines wouldn't run so damn hot now would they?
Gotta love graduates who can't even take a step back to turn a wrench b/c their face is buried in a book ALL the time telling them what they cannot do. It does not violate Sadi Carnot's law, as these engines ran/run much cooler..look at the equation again.
I get sick of people doing more with their life pointing fingers at what cannot be done, what do they contribute?
At any rate, Tom Ogle was shot, but it didn't kill him..2 weeks later he dies of "drugs & alcohol".
As time goes on the kills get more complex as to how someone ends up dead or vanishes, depending on how much attention they got.
Rudolph Diesel even exclaimed he had a way to make his engine get 3 times the mileage in 1919..he couldn't get anything done in Europe, and I forget where he was headed but he died on a fairie crossing..but you won't read that he was pursuing greater efficiency of his OWN engine..and oh, he "..slipped on a banana peel.." or something stupid like that.
Car companies have other ways of making money btw than selling cars, doesn't mean they are really in trouble..they make plenty on replacement parts alone..the cars are junk, the parts are worse, the designs are jokes unless you go for something really "exotic"..and you also have a lot of people who think their precious warranty is everything! These same people question nothing to not know anyone who sells anything in mass-production have data sheets miles long knowing full well when to estimate very closely when what part should and will wear out when, as it is designed to do, unless it just happens to truly be a bad part or pile of parts..that happens when you slap hundreds of cars together in a cookie-cutter type process, and the loss there is nothing. American cars are losing for many reasons..but mainly b/c people are realizing finally that mostly, we make the junkiest junk there is, and are way out of practice in producing anything ourselves. Why shouldn't our car companies go belly-up?
All other facets of the American industry started doing so over 30 years ago. The only surprise is how these companies left have made it this long..and that isn't tough to figure out either. It sure isn't excellence for the most part!

November 6, 2008 12:30 PM| Posted by: Sepp

To Scott:
your posts were all there. Perhaps you did not see them at first because your browser gave you a cached version of the article ...

November 9, 2008 3:36 AM| Posted by: Jerry

I'm mostly interested in ethanol because I can make it in my shop from old bread at about 3 gallon for 60 pounds. Would it be possible to do the evaporization process with alochol by first using it in the cooling system to preheat it and then sending it on to the evaporator that uses exhaust gas. This just came to me today driving down the road.

December 5, 2008 2:00 AM| Posted by: Rich

Better gas mileage is very possible! I had a '87' GrandPre with a 305 in it. It was a $500.00 car for driveing to work. When I bought it, it got about 12 mpg, I tuned it & got the mpg up to about 17 mpg, Then just to experament, I changed the front bearings lube & I finaly got that old "beater" up to around 33 mpg!!!! I'm now driveing a 6 cynlinder getting less mpg than most v8's ! I'm about to start my tinkering up again! A lot of people are thinking that water would be a great replacement for gas. Ever heard of Nostradomis, I don't know, but if we are running out of petro before long, I don't want my grandchildren to run outa water! This is a great site, thanks to all!!!

April 14, 2009 6:06 AM| Posted by: Frank Ebersole

Sepp Hasslberger,
Some of us are concerned and wandering how you fared in that earthquake.
Frank

April 14, 2009 4:18 PM| Posted by: Sepp

Frank,
luckily no problem here in Rome.
The earthquake epicenter was some 70 miles from here and although we felt the ground shaking, no damage was done in our area.

June 13, 2009 5:02 PM| Posted by: Billy the Kid

Want to see the real thing. Nobody has shown anything running until now. Check out You Tube Billy the Kid, White Gasoline Vapor. You won't be disappointed. This is like nothing you have ever seen before.
- - -
Here is the link to the video on YouTube:
White Gasoline Vapor could slow Global Warming... (Sepp)

June 26, 2009 8:04 AM| Posted by: tony d

Follow this link to early article smokey's hot vapor cycle engine. http://schou.dk/hvce/

July 11, 2009 6:27 AM| Posted by: Robert

The real problem is not weather you can get a motor to run on vapor, but what temp is it running at. Gasoline has a Lower explosive limit of 1.2 and an upper explosive limit of up to 7.2. That means that gasoline vapors of 1.2%-7.2% mixed with air burn. The higher is rich, the lower is lean. The richer, the cooler. The leaner the hotter all the way to melting the pistons. Find a way to keep it cool and you can get almost five times the milage and still have a motor. When I experimented with anything other that a very rich vapor the temp rose too high to be safe for the motor. It doesn't help if I get 40% better fuel milage but shorten the life of my motor significantly.
I'm open to suggestions
email me: rlytle@gt.rr.com

August 30, 2009 7:59 AM| Posted by: Phil

I just wanted to bring up the thought what if a design was used to only use the lighter parts of the gasoline for the combustion itself, and send any of the heavier parts of the gasoline to a separate tank. If this concept is feasible then would it be possible to use a dry vapor from the tank with the heavier gas in it, also to incorporate that into the design so dry vapor is drawn while at a constant speed such as highway driving.
I like your site. I actually have my own copy of one of Allan Wallace's "SECRETS OF THE 200 MPG CARBURETOR" A March 1982 printing which contains some of the stories referenced in your site. What really got me going was a reference in that issue about how the winner of the Shell Milage Marathon with a three wheeled vehicle won by delivering 1,368 miles per gallon. I KNOW that our cars can do better than they do.

November 9, 2009 4:56 AM| Posted by: Carl Dilley

Hi all,
About the claimed efficiency and all that I am not sure. One thing I can tell you for sure, is that the original Pogue carburetor was not destroyed etc. I happened to see it on a shelf in a forgotten museum today.
Carl Dilley

April 20, 2010 3:56 AM| Posted by: Gerald Rowley

I would like to thank Sepp for including my article from the Washington Post, "50% Mileage Increase that Detroit Won't Touch". Seeing is believing, ask Mr. Warren Brown.
Heating gasoline may shy people away but I have doing it for 10 years and I still have my fingers and toes. I must be doing something right. So for the faint of heart I heat diesel too. A little less exciting but it works too.
Visit my website for more info www.vapsterdiesel.com or do a Google search for vapster and see more stories.

October 26, 2010 12:03 AM| Posted by: PATRICK GALLOWAY

VAPORIZE GASOLINE IN A VACUMN CHAMBER WITH A FOAM LAYER TO INCREASE YOUR SURFACE AREA FOR EVAPORATION,KEEP THE CHAMBER AT 15 INCHES OF VACUMN CONTINUOUSLY .THE GASOLINE WILL BOIL AND START TO VAPORIZE,IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES IT WILL TURN TO A SLUSHY CONSISTENCY OF FROZEN VAPOR AND EXPANDED ICE CRYSTALS,INSTALL A VACUMN PUMP BETWEEN YOUR CHAMBER AND ENGINE.THIS IS TO MAINTAIN THE 15 INCHES OF VACUMN AND TO METER THE FROZEN EXPANDED GASOLINE TO YOUR ENGINE.TO SLOW THE ENGINES SPEED STEP ON THE GAS .TO SPEED IT UP LET OFF THE GAS. YOU CAN ALSO USE A VORTEX TO VAPORIZE THE GASOLINE,BUT NOT NECESSARY. WHAT I DESCRIBED IS THE METHOD OF CRACKING GASOLINE INTO ITS ELEMENTS AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A WAY OF 100 PERCENT BURN RATE,AND MAXIMIZE YOUR FUEL MILEAGE.WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPLOSION,PRIOR TO YOUR ENGINE.FORMULA IS SEALED CONTAINER ,FILLED HALFWAY WITH LIQUID GASOLINE AND A FOAM FILTER,WITH AN AIR INTAKE OF 3/8 IN THAT GOES TO THE BOTTOM OF YOUR CHAMBER,ANOTHER THAT IS AFFIXED TO THE TOP OF YOUR CHAMBER ,THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE INTAKE PORT OF YOUR VACUMN PUMP,THE EHAUST PORT OF THE VACUMN PUMP, IS ATTACHED TO ANY INTAKE PORT OF YOUR ENGINE.THIS SYSTEM WILL CONSUME ALL OF THE VAPORIZED GASOLINE AND BURN 100 PERCENT CLEAN,AND GET YOU 6 TIMES YOUR GAS MILEAGE.NO HEAT INVOLVED,NOT EXPLOSIVE ,IN FACT IT WILL IMPLODE IF TOO MUCH VACUMN IS APPLIED TO THE CHAMBER. THIS MIX GOES FROM ONE VACUMN SYSTEM TO ANOTHER(YOUR ENGINE) AND BUNS IN A -1 ATMOSPHERE INVIRONMENT.

October 26, 2010 6:28 AM| Posted by: Ken S

Mr. Dilley, the carb in the particular museum you may be speaking of is possibly a spinoff to a Pogue. I know of one in Florida. If that is the one you are speaking of, unfortunately, it is not the famed Pogue people are hoping to find. The carb in the museum in Florida I know of is a hot water carb. Patented to a man named Torell, sometime after the 200 mpg carb built by Pogue hit the streets. For more info on that carb, email me at ken55ford2001 at yahoodotcom.

November 3, 2010 9:29 PM| Posted by: jonathan davis

I was looking into the idea of getting better gas mileage out of an old dodge dart custom and was wondering if anyone had any drawn up plans on how to build the vaporizor tank. If there is anyone who could supply me with the plans on how to build it I would really appreciate it. I have tried to make on a few different ways and have ccome up unsuccessful.

January 29, 2011 3:42 PM| Posted by: Gary T. kirkland

I can prove with a Photo that Gasoline can be safely converted to a clear dry vapor that can be safely ignited before it enters the intake manifold to prove that it does work.The test flame starts out Blue, then goes to Yellow, and finally ends at Orange which is just like a Butane Lighter Flame.And as far as running an engine, it really runs much cleaner ,and results in a much cooler combustion temperature.With the right setup, this could really increase in Power, and actually works much better than nitrous oxide for all out performance.Again,if I could somehow submit a photo I could prove my point.And all of this with a mixture of 100 parts of air to 1 part of fuel.And yet it's against the EPA OBD II Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law! All Gasoline powered Vehicles must operate at 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.Any change, even if fuel economy is improved and emissions are lowered will result in a failed vehicle emissions inspection!And not one Politician or Environmentalist will dare to even attempt to answer my question ; "Why is it illegal for any Gasoline powered vehicle from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting exhaust emissions"? And I have asked quite a few.I'm not trying to sell anything.I just want an answer to my question.Can you, or someone that you know please answer my question ? Please ? Thanks ! Gary

January 29, 2011 4:48 PM| Posted by: Sepp

Hi Gary,
You say you'd like to put up a photo.
If you send me the picture by email, I believe I can put it up for you. (send to sepp at lastrega.com)
Oh yes, you are also asking a very relevant question.
"Why is it illegal for any Gasoline powered vehicle from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting exhaust emissions"?
It is a question that needs to be answered and if it can't be answered, the rules need to change. Keep pushing on that one.
Update
I got your email, Gary. So your text and picture are now appended to the article (up the page, just before the start of comments).
Sepp