[DeTomaso] NPC good idea for mileage.
jgkrenton at comcast.net
jgkrenton at comcast.net
Sun Aug 24 00:01:00 EDT 2014
Yup... This idea pops up ever decade or so. I had an Uncle who lost a lot of money in the early 1980's investing in a company that was trying to develop this sort of "vapor" system into a viable automobile fuel system. I am also aware of similar efforts back in the 60's and 50's. It keeps coming back...
Not only doesn't it allow adequate mixture control to allow an automobile engine to meet it's power demands, after a while you end up with a big soup of useless "gunk" in the bottom of the tank after you have sucked all the most volatile compounds out of the gasoline.
It's not much different than shoving a rag in the carburetor and dripping gasoline on it. It will run... Sort of...
History does repeat its self...
Hide your wallets and lock up your cars!
FYI
Jeff/2467
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Cobb" <jeffcobb1 at me.com>
To: "Jeff Detrich" <jjdetrich at gmail.com>, "List DeTomaso" <detomaso at poca.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:19:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] NPC good idea for mileage.
Thank you for sending.
What you showed us is a fine system for air/fuel vapor induction on its crudest yet functional primal level.
Various systems of this type came out and were on working automotive and motorcycle functions in 1883 +-.
American George Brayton used a device like this in about 1880 to function as a carb and he used a screen
to separate the wave reversal of combustion flame.
Karl Benz first Patent cycle used a vapor device like this in/about 1890.
The 1894 Hildebrand & Wolfmüller used this system and I photoed it at the 2013 Pebble.
Of course this system is crude and in the 120 design years since has become more usable for our daily drives.
What this u-tube shows and we all know is that a well designed steady state gasoline engine is many times more
economical that an engine with varying rpm.
Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc do it too?
They cannot use this system because it does not provide enough horsepower and drivability.
This is why future cars will have steady state gasoline engine providing power for varying rpm electric motors,
trains have used this hybrid concept starting in 1903.
Gasoline consumed will equal specific horsepower and torque output and only will a very lightly loaded small h/p output gas engine ever achieve 50 +- mpg in daily use. Any higher number would be B/S, not properly drivable and unable to carry load.
Many English cars after WWII ran on coal dust and or wood fume vapors from their pulled trailers.
Many fuel/air types are possible but most people desire functional use over economy.
Thanks,
Jeff Cobb
On Aug 23, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Jeff Detrich <jjdetrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think of this!
> Jeff
> 6559
>
> [1]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf
>
> Maybe people make fun of Rednecks and their ideas but here is one
> Genius who will make you stop and think for a minute. He watched his
> neighbor do this with a lawn mower and used the same technique on his
> V-6 Dodge Dakota pick-up truck. Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc do
> it too?
>
> References
>
> 1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at poca.com
> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at poca.com
http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
-------------- next part --------------
Yup... This idea pops up ever decade or so. I had an Uncle who lost a
lot of money in the early 1980's investing in a company that was trying
to develop this sort of "vapor" system into a viable automobile fuel
system. I am also aware of similar efforts back in the 60's and 50's.
It keeps coming back...
Not only doesn't it allow adequate mixture control to allow an
automobile engine to meet it's power demands, after a while you end up
with a big soup of useless "gunk" in the bottom of the tank after you
have sucked all the most volatile compounds out of the gasoline.
It's not much different than shoving a rag in the carburetor and
dripping gasoline on it. It will run... Sort of...
History does repeat its self...
Hide your wallets and lock up your cars!
FYI
Jeff/2467
__________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Cobb" <jeffcobb1 at me.com>
To: "Jeff Detrich" <jjdetrich at gmail.com>, "List DeTomaso"
<detomaso at poca.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 7:19:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] NPC good idea for mileage.
Thank you for sending.
What you showed us is a fine system for air/fuel vapor induction on its
crudest yet functional primal level.
Various systems of this type came out and were on working automotive
and motorcycle functions in 1883 +-.
American George Brayton used a device like this in about 1880 to
function as a carb and he used a screen
to separate the wave reversal of combustion flame.
Karl Benz first Patent cycle used a vapor device like this in/about
1890.
The 1894 Hildebrand & WolfmA 1/4ller used this system and I photoed it
at the 2013 Pebble.
Of course this system is crude and in the 120 design years since has
become more usable for our daily drives.
What this u-tube shows and we all know is that a well designed steady
state gasoline engine is many times more
economical that an engine with varying rpm.
Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc do it too?
They cannot use this system because it does not provide enough
horsepower and drivability.
This is why future cars will have steady state gasoline engine
providing power for varying rpm electric motors,
trains have used this hybrid concept starting in 1903.
Gasoline consumed will equal specific horsepower and torque output and
only will a very lightly loaded small h/p output gas engine ever
achieve 50 +- mpg in daily use. Any higher number would be B/S, not
properly drivable and unable to carry load.
Many English cars after WWII ran on coal dust and or wood fume vapors
from their pulled trailers.
Many fuel/air types are possible but most people desire functional use
over economy.
Thanks,
Jeff Cobb
On Aug 23, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Jeff Detrich <jjdetrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think of this!
> Jeff
> 6559
>
> [1]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf
>
> Maybe people make fun of Rednecks and their ideas but here is one
> Genius who will make you stop and think for a minute. He watched
his
> neighbor do this with a lawn mower and used the same technique on
his
> V-6 Dodge Dakota pick-up truck. Why can't GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc
do
> it too?
>
> References
>
> 1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201677077718343&fref=nf
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at poca.com
> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
DeTomaso mailing list
DeTomaso at poca.com
http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list