Instructables

3X Gasoline Engines Sniff Vapors and Burn Water

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? How can water possibly be turned into a useful fuel by just burning it? Sure we can use hydrolysis to separate water into its hydrogen and oxygen gases, and then burn the hydrogen gas as fuel, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Believe it or not, jet engines do it, they have used water to enhance engine thrust, so why not have IC-engines do the same thing?

There’s a catch here, since only vapo-engines (  http://goo.gl/QQ42k ) are capable of performing this trick successfully, they must first be introduced into the design mix. Since IC-vapo-engines burn very effectively they run hot, and water would be used as a better alternative than injecting extra wasteful fuel to cool down the engine as is done in today’s engine to prevent knocking. Why don’t we just inject water in today’s engines you ask?  Because they run so poorly already, that the water would extinguish the IC-combustion process. In technical jargon this is known as the ability for an engine to burn lean with an air-to-fuel ratio greater than ~15. Today’s engines can’t sustain a leaner combustion than ~22  without extinguishing themselves. By adding water droplets we further increase this ratio to unsustainable conditions. Unfortunately, this wasteful, richer burning keeps the engine running better by keeping the fuel cooler. In contrast, our vapo-engine is capable of burning unbelievably lean ratios of ~30+. Lean combustion means almost no pollutants and virtually green combustion exhaust products of only CO2 and water. No catalytic converters necessary here, as opposed to running today’s rich engines with their unavoidable polluting exhaust emissions and heavy reliance on catalytic converters.

So the irony here is that since IC-engines already run ratty, let’s waste a little more fuel and run richer just to cool down the engine. This prevents engine knocking (the dieseling of an engine due to unwanted, poorly timed, premature combustion) which occurs from the pitiful amount of fuel that does vaporize and burn correctly. Sadly, engineers have cleverly learned to waste fuel for the sole purpose of keeping our IC-engines cool, above and beyond the engine’s normal water cooling system. It gets even better, as the richer the engine runs the more we need to rely on expensive catalytic converters to keep exhaust emissions in check!

 Vapo-engines also require cooling, even more than today’s engines, but their advantage is the capability to burn very lean. So instead of ridiculously injecting extra fuel to cool them, like today’s engines, we inject water droplets mixed in with the injected fuel vapor. The water droplets perform three functions; 1) they reduce excess fuel consumption, 2) they cool the engine walls to prevent pre-ignition and knocking which provides better combustion, and 3) they enhance the fuel-vapor detonation force created on the piston from the expanding superheated steam which further helps engine performance. So in a way we are burning the water to generate steam power like a locomotive.   


lemonie1 year ago
What is the purpose of this post?
You've spent a lot of text talking about something, but I can't see why.

L
RT-101 (author)  lemonie1 year ago

Fair question.

I’m trying to keep the vapo-engine topic alive and interesting by using sound-bites to address its concept. Having previously been accused of using too many words on my forum topics, I'm making mid-course corrections.

As no one challenged the high temperatures generated by Vapos (since it is capable of very lean combustion without wasting fuel that others use just for cooling “not power”), I wanted it recognized and then dealt with. Vapos go all out in needing every bit of technology we have today to make it work properly, that’s why you’re not driving in one now!

lemonie RT-1011 year ago
Have you got some testing (yourself) in mind, or are you asking for people with engines to experiment?
And out of interest, have you sent any letters/emails to engine-manufacturers?

L
RT-101 (author)  lemonie1 year ago
1) SELF TESTING: Yes eventually I intend to modify small engines the size of lawnmowers into vapo-engines and test them, but no water additives yet. The demo would be intended to shame Detroit. Lots of folks are already applying the vapo concept (without burning water) on a small scale on Youtube, but without any real engineering design behind it, just tinkering. Still, some are starting to get favorable results just from tinkering, which should encourage others, start shaming Detroit, and wake up the government. DIY folks are clearly starting to prove the potential of vapo-engines, and I love it!

2) ENGINE-MANUFACTURERS: Engine manufacturers have been aware of this concept for quite awhile (probably over 50-years), they just don't want YOU to know about it. If they can make money selling the "crap" they have now, why fix it unless they seriously get pressured by the government and the public. That's why this blog exists! Remember though, it will take some serious engineering design efforts to make it happen correctly!
lemonie RT-1011 year ago
1) I thought that Detroit had suffered a major decline since it was Christened "Mo-town"?

2) In Europe, because of high fuel-taxes, engine manufacturers have been pushing fuel-efficiency for a long time.

L
I saw a car advert here today, boasting about fuel efficiencies of 40mph, for open road driving, as if it was amazing advance in engine technology.

In the UK, that was typical efficiency 20+ years ago.

My current car does 60mph on urban cycle!
I watched one of the most bloody-awful corporate videos today. I made gestures with my fingers at the screen and pointed them down my throat. If I was an angry person I would have been very cross indeed.
The product it's self is fundamentally good-gameplay and ought not to need this crap.

L
what is an urban cycle? is that like the spin cycle on the washing machine?
It's what the EPA calls "city driving" vs. "highway driving." Those wacky Brits always have different words ;->
We call it "urban cycle" be because we don't apply the title of "city" to populations of three hundred...
He he. Its the test for fuel consumption under typical stop/start condittions, not optimised.
Lame link building scheme to his patent website of some kind.
RT-101 (author)  Jayefuu1 year ago
Do you also feel that Michael Phelps doesn’t deserve his 19 Olympic medals?
Jayefuu RT-1011 year ago
Irrelevant much?
Kiteman1 year ago
*sigh*

Again with the uninvented "vapo engine"...

Normal engines have been using this trick since the early sixties.  [Click here for results of 5 seconds of research].
RT-101 (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

Agreed, water injection exists it’s an NIH idea and I’m proudly using it to cool down an unfortunately hot running vapo-engine. Keep in mind that the vapo-engine is more effective at using this cooling technique than any of today’s engines because of extreme lean burning capability. Plus the more water used, the more steam I generate for extra power.

BTW, note Wikipedia recognizes that only today’s high performance turbocharged engines “successfully” use water injection. Turbochargers provide a slightly higher A/F ratio and allow a bit more water over conventional engines to improve cooling. Vapo-engines beat turbos hands down in lean burning, absolutely no comparison. Fuel is still wasted in turbos as combustion timing can’t convert it into a useful, properly timed power stroke due to delays in turning liquid fuel drops to vapor so it can burn. The burn/explosion itself takes a finite time, ~2 milisecs, which decreases exponentially with cooling and higher compression ratios.

Kiteman RT-1011 year ago
*sigh*

"Vapo engines beat turbos hands down..."

Or would, if they existed yet.

Your whole idea founded on a technology that does not (yet?) exist, and uses a resource that is unlikely to last beyond the lifetime of most people reading this.
RT-101 (author)  Kiteman1 year ago
OK, agreed!
The hardware doesn't exist commercially, but in prototypes.

There's much potential value here plus the existence of sporadically tangible results.  Prototype systems have appeared from time to time, definitely demonstrating its potential. I'm simply trying to make folks aware of this.
Kiteman RT-1011 year ago
That's good, but to do that you need to make your opening posts much, much shorter, much less preachy, and provide images of the things if they exist, and useful links to the research if it's just in prototype.

If you are trying to persuade people you are correct, you need to give them enough information on a plate to persuade them, rather than telling them to go and research it for themselves.

It would also help your case if you did not simply ignore points made that undermine your position, vis, the imminent running out of oil reserves which the encouragement of petroleum-based technologies only accelerates.

In other words. let me see you start posting about sustainable, renewable solutions to the energy crisis, rather than ideas that will only prolong the pain.
RT-101 (author)  Kiteman1 year ago
Good advice.
Some refocus never hurts.
I view preachy as a necessary carrot to get folks attention, but yes, too much is no good either.

Appreciate your feedback.
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!