guess what...when you increase efficiency you increase power. So the two go hand in hand. Were not jumping all over it because its a worthless idea for what your talking about.


I cant say it enough gasoline isnt gasious...its a liquid. If you injected gas into your combustion chamber it better be something like 300 octane because its going to detonate instantaniously. One of the big reasons gasoline is the way it is. Gasoline is used as a liquid because in its state it helps to prevent detonation.

 

1) So...what happens if you get a accidental backfire and your plug breaks at the jet? Would that little piece bouncing around the cylinder (probably 5 or 7) do any damage?

2) Will the Jet erode with time due to normal usage. If so see #1

3) I would like to see some MPG facts please. I keep meticulous records of my gas usage, but I am down to earth on any mpg assertions.

Bottom line..Show Me (please) the mpg gain. To do this right you need to put through several tanks, then drill a set of plugs, then put through a few tanks. It would be most helpful.

4) If the jet helps, why dont plugs come with an actual nozzle? Is this like the split-fire plug?

 

I think 98% is way high but I don't have numbers to dispute.
Now the big question is are we burning the 98% efficiently and getting the most power available?
We most certainly are not!

Simply preheating the fuel and injecting it into the stock manifold will probably yield poor results.
But hey do what ya like. Nobody ever learned by not trying.

Now I think a few things have been over stated.
Yes cool (not ice cold) dense air is good for combustion. You get more oxygen per volume that way and air is only approx 21% oxygen. You need oxygen to burn any fuel.

Hot air is expanded and therefore has less o2 per volume. That's why any good turbo engine has some type of intercooler.

Now I don't think the same rules apply to fuels. Cool fuel is more dense but the problem has never been not being able to pump in enough gas.

We have all seen fuel cooling systems but the idea behind them is to use the fuel to cool the air.
Hot fuel squirted into air heats up the air, Cold fuel cools the air.

Hot fuel atomises better.You can'tburn liquid fuel we burn fuel vapour. The finer the fuel mist the better it mixes with the air and you get better combustion.

Now until very recently we have always mixed the fuel and air together before we suck or force it into the cylinder, so if you inject hot well atomised fuel into the manifold it will heat the air and expand it. the expanded air contains less oxygen and you get less bang for your buck.
catch 22 huh?

Combined with the fact that fuel is injected into the port before the valve also causes the fuel to condense into larger droplets before the mixture is sucked into the cylinder.

Now you might be able to offset the the thin hot air by also injecting Nitrous Oxide into the mix to make up for the lost oxygen, but nitrous ain't free like air is.

To get the benefit from super heated fuel vapour you need to keep it from heating the air and thinning out the oxygen. The solution to that is some kind of direct injection system. Get the dense air into the cylinder, then seal it so the air can't escape, then force the superheated fuel vapour directly into the combustion chamber and ignite the mixture.

A few manufacturers now have direct injection gasoline engines on the market but I'm not aware of any using a heated fuel.
As stated before super heated fuel is dangerous and difficult to pump.

So I think you're on to something but there are obstacles to overcome.

A turbo, intercooled, NOS, direct injected, high compression, heated alcohol burning enginewould be fantastic.

 

A fantastic explosion.

 

Got anything intelligent to add to the conversation, Flintstone?

 

Yeah, back on page one. Water injection is a good idea and has been for a long time-as long as it is used in small amounts. He was on to something there.

I agree. It's silly.

I wassuggesting that, if you build a high compression motor then throw boost and those other things you mentioned at it, you may be asking for trouble.

 

yeah... If 98% of fuel is burned inside of the engine, why is it that catalytic converters are necessary to prevent bad emmissions from exiting the exhaust as unburned hydrocarbons? And why is it that back in the day a person could install a sparking device in their exhaust pipes to create a flamethrower type of effect out their pipes? Simply because most of the fuel injected into a cylinder doesn't burn. It get's carried away in the exhaust. Want proof? Ask yourself, why were exhaust gas recirculation systems or positive crankcase ventilation systems designed for cars in order to recylcle unburned hydrocarbons? Is it because some engineers wanted an extra 2% of fuel to get burned??? Probably not. It's for trying to capture some of all that lost fuel in the exhaust stream. But anyways. I'll keep everyone posted on the results of this project.

 

That's why I'm using Alcohol instead of Gas in my futuristic fantasy motor . More power and tolerant of higher compression.

Slomojo
A piston internal compression engine is far from efficient but they aren't that bad.
EGR andPCV are pollution control devices they don't scavenge unburnt fuel for economy. The PCV might have a small amount of fuel but most of your blow-by gasses are inert. They used to just vent it to atmosphere till the EPA and CARB clamped down on them.
Good luck with your experiment.

 

likethe process of turning gasoline from a liquid into a vapor?

 

Your not still on that "You burn liquid fuel" kick are you?