you have to read this article [car technology]

[Perris Calderon]

ok, this is too good to be true

do you remember when we were growing up there was an urban myth about a carburator that would get you 50 miles per gallon?

well there was and there it is in the article

anyone that knows anything about cars and fuel aspiration will get a real kick out of that article because we've been taught that the cooler the induction charge the more power.

this SEEMS counter intuitive because you would think you would want the fuel temperature as close to ignition temperature as possible, however with a cooler charge you get a denser charge and thus more fuel per charge, more power....the problem with that principle is the obvious waste of fuel

often opposite principles will work and neither is wrong, one might be better but neither is wrong

that principle of cooling the charge is one of those "opposite principles both work", there is an oposite principle where heating the charge will get more efficiency and thus more power

supposedly both principles work, what is amazing though is heating the charge not only gets you more horsepower but it also increases fuel efficicency and therefore fuel economy

if te story in that link is true, and I have no reason to believe it's not true, then it is amazing that engine is not being produced today

 

[ming]

er... don't you normally get 50mpg on a normal car? or are you talking about those sports cars?

 

[Perris Calderon]

er... don't you normally get 50mpg on a normal car? or are you talking about those sports cars?

no ming, we get between 20 and 35 mpg, the hybrids do better and the really small eco cars do better

this particular engine got less horsepower and 40 mpg without the technology

 

[Unleashed]

50mpg! Both of mine do between 18-23 depending how I drive. I might get 33-35 on a run.

Strangely, my dad who is no scientist, has been saying warm air = better for years. Thing is, he had direct experience from years of driving in the deserts in Africa. He said cars always ran better in Namibia than they did the south coast of South Africa.

 

[Steevo]

Depends on the application.



Hotter air raises the pre-combustion pressures allowing the engine to achieve higher efficeincy at partial throttle, always the problem with forced induction low compression engines. When under minimal load with no boost being created the compression ratio drops causing a huge loss of efficency. This also applies to high compression engines, more so than engines designed to run at lower compressions.


But with ALL engines more power is made during high demand if air charge is colder. More fuel air mixture can enter the same space in the cylinder.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Depends on the application.


But with ALL engines more power is made during high demand if air charge is colder. More fuel air mixture can enter the same space in the cylinder.

that's not a fair statement steevo, you are using conventional technology to make that claim

as the article points out, that colder air creates less efficiency, you get more power becuase you are able to introduce more fuel but that is with lower percentage of that fuel burned

with technology that creates greater efficiency you will get more power with less fuel because more of it is burned, in essence you are burning more fuel even though you are introducing less of it

differant platforms to make more power, it looks like both platforms are valid

consider;

if the "higher temperature" platform was developed before the "colder charge" platform that we undertand and then I posted an article saying

"lower temperature increases horsepower" there would be people that would say;

But with ALL engines more power is made during high demand if air charge is high and effficently burned, higher efficiency enters the equation in the cylinder."

new technological principles are always hard to accept when they go against proven technology that use the opposite principle

 

[Unleashed]

I consulted an aeronautical engineer friend, and this was his reply.

Heating fuel will reduce its calorific value, vapourising fuel will create an end result very similar to running on LPG. I can see no benefit from anything in the article. As far as the "adiabatic" statement is concerned, it implies that the mixture is burning in the cylinder without transfering heat to the walls of the engine, physically impossible.

The closest engine to that he describes is an early carburettor semi-diesel (Bolinder) engine that uses a hot spot to ignite the mixture.

Total Twaddle!!

 

[Steevo]

http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/Smithsonian.pdf


150Hp, it was not in a Fiearo.



Sorry, but that one is a urban legend. And imagine what happens if you get hit in a car that has fuel air mixture ready to burn? Kaboom.



It works no doubt, but there are other things that come into play.

 

[Perris Calderon]

http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/Smithsonian.pdf


150Hp, it was not in a Fiearo.

notice my bold from your pda;

One of Smokey Yunick’s hot vapor engine has been accepted into the Smithsonian

the pda also says one of the engines went into a gulf

the one we are talking about in this thread and that article was a fiero, it was dpcumented in car and driver magazine (wiki)

An interesting article was published in the May 1984 Car and Driver about Henry "Smokey" Yunick and his Hot Vapor Fiero. Smokey Yunick reportedly produced 250 hp (186 kW) from the four-cylinder engine using heated fuel pumped through a turbine "homogenizer" and an exhaust-heated "heat exchanger". In this instance, the power was reportedly doubled as well as the fuel economy. A 14 second 0-60 mph car became a 5.9 second 0-60 mph car. This concept is based on the theory of the adiabatic engine, where no heat is gained or lost during the process.

Sorry, but that one is a urban legend.

according to the pda you just posted it was not an urban legend, it's a fact

And imagine what happens if you get hit in a car that has fuel air mixture ready to burn? Kaboom.

not so, the only added kaboom over any engine would be that which is in the induction chamber, a nothing and far more easy to engineer protection then say the fuel tank

It works no doubt, but there are other things that come into play.

there were things that came into play before they developed forced induction too

this technology has not been developed and needs to be it certainly has more potential then forced induction

 

[Steevo]

an old Volkswagen Rabbit with a two-cylinder hot vapor engine in it, got over 50 miles per gallon
and produced over 150 horsepower.

 

[Perris Calderon]

an old Volkswagen Rabbit with a two-cylinder hot vapor engine in it, got over 50 miles per gallon
and produced over 150 horsepower.

after doing a little research steevo, I think smokey did indeed produce a higher output engine but the principles might not have been what he thought

I think what he did actrually cooled the air, what he was heating was the fuel, I think that really translated into near vaporization before ignition, it wasn't the fact that the fuel was hotter it was the fact that it was vaporized

not withstanding unleashed's expert, it doesn't matter if fuel looses some of it's punch when at a higher temperature if a greater amount of that fuel is excellerated to overcome the loss of output
so the combination of cold air and vaporized fuel is probably what was going on, I think it wasn't the fact that the fuel was hotter it might have been the fact that the fuel was vaporized

right now the state of the art in engine technology is direct injection which pretty much does the same thing only at normal operating temperature

for instance, my turbo charged echtech I get 260 horsepwer from a 2 liter engine, I also get 40 miles to the gallon on an open road

the direct injection vaporizes the fuel and distributes it more "homogeounous" which seems to be what smokey was trying to accomplish

so even though he thought the purpose was heating the fuel I think the real purpose was vaporizing the fuel

at any rate, some people claim to have driven the fiero and plenty of people say they saw it

 

[Steevo]

The homogenizer spoken of provides "at point" air charge pressure. AKA a turbo mounted atop the intake manifold.


A EGR, Exhaust gas rebreather, is placed before the "turbo" and allows extra heat to be added, as well as extra compressible mass to the charge, further driving up combustion pressures.





I see something that works, but that is highly dangerous. A high RPM spinning blade in the intake tract, directly above the intake ports on the head. Highly explosive fule mixture, being mixed with hot exhaust gasses that in all reality contain small embers of carbon that can cause detonation.






This will work, yes, it is highly efficient in terms of generating power, as power is heat. But in safety terms it is dangerous.



The last aspect is that of maintainiance, the hotter an engine runs, the sooner everything wears, the sooner oil must be changed from thermal breakdown, a engine where the coolant is used in such a manner means that a small leak can cause engine failure.

 

[Steevo]

Ahh direct injection with high compression. AKA, lean burn.



Did you know that can make thermal barrier coatings for pistons that start the catylitic process and increase combustion efficiency? But $$$$$$ makes it a no go for mainstream production cars. A few years back Ford came up with a coating to go on radiators that would cause a small catylitic conversion to breakdown smog. The result? No one wants to pay for the extra.