Date:         Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:48:54 -0400
Reply-To:     Wil Haslup <wil@CHARMFX.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Wil Haslup <wil@CHARMFX.COM>
Subject:      Re: alternative carburetion of FI 2.0 Liter vanagon engine???
In-Reply-To:  <20050908010043.63136.qmail@web52805.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

phil cain wrote:
> All the devices that work have been bought up by the
> oil companies so we won't get the mileage.

Mostly I'm thinking those with machinist skills may attempt to build
versions of devices from patent drawings to establish if the thing works
or not...a small one for a lawn mower, say.

...then once you understand what's going on there is nothing to say you
can't develop your own iteration of the concept resulting in a new
patentable version.

...most seem to depend on vacuum, metering and/or use of heat to
encourage a more thorough dispersion of fuel as vapor or near
vapor...more surface area on the molecules results in cleaner burning
with less fuel.

I say that but don't necessarily believe the legends of 100-200 mpg
carburetors.  It does seem that even a 10%-20% improvement might be
worth looking at the ideas though.

There are engine designs which are acknowledged to be more efficient and
are being used in some vehicle applications.  I found a reference to a
Stirling engine design being used in Swedish subs.

http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/aipstirling.html

I believe I heard somewhere Dean Kamen, developer of the Segway personal
transporter, delayed announcing the Segway in hopes of perfecting a
Stirling to power it.  In its place they released it with the
rechargeable battery powered electric version.

> The ones
> that are left are sold by the snake oil companies(in
> other words they don't work)

I've bought a few of those over the years offering small percentage
gains in efficiency and gotten no consistent gains myself.  I didn't
loose much on them though.  Lesson learned.

> Without the proper
> mixture you will either foul the plugs or burn the
> valves from to rich or too lean.

sure.

> Fuel injection is the
> best followed by a properly jetted carb.

neither really exploiting the promise offered by either the vapor
induction or extremely precise fuel metering systems mentioned in the
legends of such devices....but they do work and other than injectors and
jets getting clogged aren't problematic.

An idea I've toyed with is finding a mechanism to limit the time the
injector is open and increase dispersion out of the injector effectively
reducing the amount of fuel but increasing the surface area of the
amount injected.  In computer controlled injection a method for
adjusting the mixture from the specification would be needed since these
settings and those controlling air are in the EPROM.

I've seen custom computer control setups to replace factory vehicle
computers...they provide the ability to make such adjustments.

> Another thing
> we have to deal with is the ethanol, it makes our
> older cars run hotter, the new cars love it. This is
> just my two cents worth on the Fuel injection / carb
> problem.

What I have noted is that when you mention these legendary devices often
folks point to the debunking web sites and say they are all shams.

I personally remember seeing 2 guys testifying before Congress on C-Span
in the late 70's when they had gas/efficiency hearings about a tweaked
diesel they put into a Pinto body that they got 98 mpg out of.  Their
testimony was interrupted by a phone call from a representative of a
major manufacturer and I never saw the story on any other media.

...with CAFE standards, etc. you have to wonder what the motivation is
for squelching such things.


--

Wil


-- http://www.charmfx.com/

"Every generalization is dangerous, especially this one."
-- Mark Twain