Instructables

Fuel Vaporizer , where to start??

I'm trying to find some how tos' on making a fuel vaporizer for my car. I've searched the nets and couldn't really find a how to.. I've also checked the youtubes but some of the vids are foreign language.

WilliamB325 days ago

HHO should work fine and not come up against the laws of physics if the alternator is NOT used to power the electrolyzer. Instead, thermoelectric generators powered by the vehicle's waste heat should be used to power the electrolyzer in a standard, non-hybrid vehicle. The engine will not work any harder to power a TEG, since waste heat is a byproduct of any running internal combustion engine, so the HHO from the electrolyzer would be a source of extra fuel with no cost in performance. This would raise efficiency levels.

This could be done, it would work, miles per gallon would go up, and no one could could feasibly argue that the physics don't allow it. After all, using the engine's waste heat is using a valid source of energy that routinely goes to waste. If that energy is captured and used to generate HHO via a thermoelectric generator and an HHO electrolyzer, it should reduce the amount of gasoline consumed per mile in a gasoline vehicle.

This could be done and there are advantages beyond higher mpg, like cleaner emissions due to HHO's ability to more thoroughly combust gasoline, but I'd bet no one even bothers to try due to the upfront cost of a thermoelectric generator. Let's face it. People won't really give a crap unless there is a true energy crisis, a situation where fuel is too expensive or truly in short supply.

If HHO generation on the fly could be done, then please go and do it, but I know it can't, and I haven't even got a degree in physics, I do have common sense though and know that to split Hydrogen and Oxygen, you need twice the energy input into separating them than you would get back, it's a simple case of ever diminishing returns. It's not worked to date, and doubtful that it will ever work in the future.

You're absolutely correct, you do not have a degree in physics. We'll have to take what you "know" with a grain of salt. :)

Thank you for your comment.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4858582.html

NachoMahma6 years ago
. What fuel do you want to vaporize?
Mr. TiKi (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
gasoline/petroleum
. Not sure why you would want to vaporize gasoline - atomization seems to work much better - but there is plenty of readily available heat in the exhaust stream. Wrap a fuel line around an exhaust pipe or manifold.
Mr. TiKi (author)  NachoMahma6 years ago
Would that not be potentially dangerous?
Err it's simple enough to do but yes it's bloody dangerous, then again I'm doing the same thing on my desk... In a car engine it seems easy enough, use a large diameter copper piping, use seals rated for the heat involved and at most make one or two turns of the actual exhaust manifold, even just snake it up between the pipes. Petrol is pretty easy to vaporize... Building a liquid fuelled jet has many inherent dangers... During a test of how well vaporisation works in containers i found that a powerful blast of jet flame is very easy to make...
Mr. TiKi (author)  killerjackalope6 years ago
Thanks for your input. I think I'm going to switch my focus towards HHO. I found a great site with a bunch of info and videos.
http://diyhydrogenhho.com
Screw it, right now... HHO is still pure BS to me, the chemistry doesn't work, honestly having a cooled air intake (active cooled) would be a far better option, as would a modified air filter... Hell you could have butane injection, which is mental, like Nos only cheaper and somehow very effective, despite being just extra fuel... I'm n the process of getting a oxy-hydrogen torch together, to get some tests, however the process is flawed at the most basic level...
Not to mention you have to put in three times the power to make HHO then you'll get out of HHO.. So why not skip a bunch of steps and go straight electric ?
youve actually got that backwards. You need 2vdc per plate gap, and very little amperage to make HHO. Hydrogen is the most abundant fuel in the universe, and has 3 times the explosive energy when compared to gasoline. gasoline takes drilling, refining, and shipping at all stages. It is an energy hog to create it. And its not renewable. Hydrogen, is typically made on demand as an augmentative fuel source. It is made with 12vdc (several plate gap stacks) and less amperage than your cars headlights use. The design problems are producing enough to run a motor vehicle. hydrogen will readily burn anywhere from 4% through 100% mixture. Gasoline has a much narrower range starting around 14%. Hydrogen, is renewable, and when burned it produces oxygen, and water vapor. It is documented with many scientific report, even including research done from NASA.
Given hybrid cars use very small engines like the chevy volt only uses a 1.4 liter engine it is much more probable that an engine like that could be made to run on HHO. But a V-8, nope,, not unless it was plugged into the wall. LOL
Very well said. The future is in Hydrogen !
Mr. TiKi (author)  Big Bwana6 years ago
Electric would be too expensive. Also I'd wait for better battery technology to develop.

Nah...   not expensive at all.
It just takes a bit of creativity is all.

Some PVC pipe, a heating element out of an old
Coffee Maker or something similar to that nature,
some rubber cement or some metal fittings for
the fuel lines, and maybe a fire suit.

Oh yeh...   and a good fire exstinguisher.

.
...Or for GM and Chevron and the other petroleum-based giants to release the patents on the batteries that already exist, but can't be produced because the patents are locked.
Mr. TiKi (author)  CameronSS6 years ago
Cameron do you have a link so I could check them out??
Mr. TiKi (author)  Mr. TiKi6 years ago
I think I found what your were talking about. From " who killed the electric car" ? I have yet to see that doc but I have it here. Well anyways the technololy they used was for NiMH batteries. I think Lithium is a better way to go. They just have to work out the qinks.
Yup-That's the extent of my knowledge. The entire movie is online now, but in compressed format.

This has nothing to do with fuel vaporizers, though..we should probably take this discussion elsewhere. Feel free to PM me or use my Orangeboard.
I've experimented with HHO with decent results. The main thing is to use free or cheap material, and don't do anything irreversible to your car. Then if you haven't improved your MPG you haven't lost anything but time. But also be careful!! I forgot to turn the "HHO generator" off for like an hour, and when I hit the ignitioun there was a DEVASTATING explosion. Real damage and near deafness. I would go with a ram-air setup to improve intake pressure. It does make a difference. I did a combination of things that improved my mpg from 37 to 44.
That's what I was saying, I just couldn't remember how many times more it was... I suggest cycling, it's fun...
. Gasoline is potentially dangerous no matter what you do. Use good-quality stainless/brass/copper tubing and you should be OK. Watch for pressure spikes if the gasoline boils. Keep away from flames and/or sparks.
It's supposed to increase MPG. Accent on supposed. But hey easy enough to try, I'd use Nachos suggestion.
. hmmmm everything I've read calls for chilling gasoline for max efficiency. The mantra for the hi-po boys was always "Atomize, don't vaporize." Like you say, easy enough to try.
Big Bwana6 years ago
Here's some thing to look at, and they just heated and insulated the fuel line to give them a low pressure vapor and this was all done on a souped-down 1959 Opel T-1 that achieved 376.59 miles per gallon in a 1973, And it's in the Guiness book of world records, 1975...

for more info and pictures http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm
Heh. Been trying to Google info on that on-and-off for days that wasn't coming from a "great oil conspiracy" source. Read this. That car was a stripped-down shell, power nothing, read elsewhere it also had hard solid rubber tires, and was driven at a steady 30mph for the test. Not for the real world, at all, solely designed and built for the mileage test. Who would want to drive something like that?

And all that was a bit beyond "...they just heated and insulated the fuel line..." (emphasis added).

BTW, isn't atomization what a carburetor does? Which was replaced by fuel injection for better efficiency?
Yes it has been striped down, the top chopped, weight reduced, to obtain the mileage.. But why with the technologies we have today, can't we compete with it.. Even if we could do half or a quarter it would be a vast improvement over what we have on the market today... We can reduce weight with composite fibers, honeycomb structures, electronic controls etc... I just used it as an example of what has been done, and done along time ago .........

And I pointed out they heated and insulated the fuel line, to cause the fuel to become a low pressure vapor , and the question was about vaporizing fuel. I also included a link to the page for people to review what else was done to the car....

Yep that's what the carb does and the auto makers went with fuel injection because it is cheaper, not necessarily more efficient... If you have ever rebuilt a carb you would know the amount of work involved when compared to replacing a few injectors, now think if it from a machinist point of view when they have to make them, FI is simple... And yes now they have better computer control...

Now I'll show you some thing that has been done in 1930 ... By a not very well known Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue, He patented and built a Vapor carburetor, and it got 200 miles to a gallon in 1933 in a Ford V8.. Strange how thing's like this just fall off the planet, and the basic vapor idea for the Opel came from this....
Besides the simple stuff like how much extra consumer-unwanted expense there is to use composites etc, the thing was made for 30mph. That's it. Get up to 30, stay there. Technically speaking with the right power transmission system and a long acceleration phase, I could probably do that with my vehicles on a flat with a beefy lawn tractor engine.

Much of today's engines are set to making lots of power very fast, iirc from when I was researching electric motors for cars only about 20HP is needed for level cruising. Granted there are lots of factors that can make it somewhat more or less than 20, but still that's ballpark. You can tweak with aerodynamics and friction in the powertrain etc but once it's up to speed and under about 55mph (where wind resistance kicks up to the square), you can see that most of the engine capacity gets unused. You pay for acceleration and for getting above 30mph, especially above 55. And for power anything, air conditioning...

Review this Wikipedia article. An ideal engine with 10:1 compression ratio would only have 46% efficiency. See this. Real world, 20% yield is doing rather good. There's not all that much more that can be done with a standard gas engine.

Now then, I've rebuilt carbs and changed fuel injectors. I have owned and currently own vehicles from when the makers were really trying to get the emissions down using carbs, resulting in assorted vacuum controls and solenoids and computers controlling both carb and spark. It didn't work, as heard from a longtime family friend and garage owner they were changing the vacuum systems more than once during a model year trying to get them to work. The results at the end were hideous. Then came fuel injection. They had to go to FI to make emissions work.

FI is not really cheaper, you have in-tank electric pumps instead of a simple mechanical one driven by the motor, pressurized gas lines and fittings, additional computerization. From that machinist point of view, they use transfer machines that can knock off a carb body from casting in a minute or less, and fuel injectors are high-wear bothersome electrical things that get farmed off to Bosch and similar.

They use fuel injection because it works better. No mystery. Better emissions control, using a more complete burning of the gas in the cylinder which gives better mileage.

Ah the Pogue carburetor! Oh look, the debunking of the Pogue carburetor on Snopes! Reality check, please. The Great Depression, millions clamoring for anything to make the few dollars they had go further. If it worked, if it ever really existed, they couldn't have made them fast enough. Was there a Great Government Conspiracy to hide it away? Tons of money were spent on fuel in WWII, supply lines critical, a miracle carb would have given us a massive edge. And yet it never came out.

Look, as much fun as it is to bash Big Oil, the simple fact is the automakers owe them no favors. If they had such great technology they could get just 70 or 80 mpg from an average car, then they would, they could sell them at a premium with a thick profit margin. Yes the Pogue carb got a patent, as did a dozen or more quack medical devices at the time. But you don't see any made going from the patent, since that was 70 years ago and it long ago expired you would think someone would have done it by now.

Do you think it's finally time we admit there's only so much one can do with the traditional gasoline engine, and it's probably already been done, so we can devote our resources to developing something better?
Truth is, many of these things DO WORK. HHO, Fuel vaporization, to only name a couple mentioned here. The fact lies in there's no money in it. Do you honestly think any manufacturer, politician, or gas company will promote anything that saves you money? No. If they could line their pockets with the savings sure! Then they'd charge you 40K for the car. At any point the consumer is the only winner, the product will not see the light of day. Even here in washington state if I was to build my own wind and solar power system I will not get any kick backs. NONE! Even if my excess energy is fed back to the grid, they will not pay me. That is unless I utilize commercial companies at 10X the cost. Ive personally looked into this. Ive also run small engines on HHO. Ive also designed and built a methane generator, all of them work just fine!
We all know our politicians lie to us. So why is it such a stretch to believe things that might save the consumer money, and not put money into corporate pockets, especially in one of the biggest industries out there the auto industry, would be hidden, bought, or remain out of site to the average consumer? Truth is, yes there are a lot of sham artists out there. But also a lot of tech out there that is useful, and even beneficial to our wallets, as well as the environment.
I really dont know how effecient it really works but I did see that Big Daddy Don Garletts has one in his museum. He has a picture of him holding one..Antique looking. There is an article on Cnn.com now about a 5.0 mustang that gets 100 MPG and he is working his patents right now. I would imagine is uses a fuel vaporization sytem. He is aparently using E85. One article I read says that is the best to use for this process.
Pogue-carb-Don-Garlits.jpg
Couldn't find that from CNN but some local stations carried it. FIVE times the efficiency from a 400HP engine? Then again, our local news reported about someone using water to increase his mileage, guy said his goal was to have a car that ran entirely on water. Thus we see the quality of some local news reporting, although one gets the impression they put on "gonzo" pieces for the humor, "And if you the viewer wish to believe that..."

Think I found an online profile for the "110 mpg" guy, name and location match. I recommend anyone reading this to read that. He has a business that makes parts, it's mentioned they're selling an engine brace he designed for drag racing that saves 5% on fuel! He developed it to correct problems on his 1979 Mustang LX V8 that he races. Didn't see anything about him doing those mileage mods to that instead of the 1987 Mustang he used, you'd think he would with all the fuel racing consumes...
jalvarez153 years ago
i think it would be better , to get a water / colant ,line conect it to the intake or the block. with a coper line . dip the line into a canister where you'll have fule , put in quarter full of fule and seal it with JB weld to close any leaks . i got a pvc pipe to cove the carb from a 3 inch diameter to 1 inch . with has 2 inlets one for vaporiser fule and one with a valve for regular air . to maximaise fule eficancy . close valve befor start the vacume of the cumbustion chamber will do all the work < im suprised it starts faster than a regualr EFI engine .

< we got this 90 geo tracker runing with a pickel jar we got it up to 35 mph we were suprised >>
Snapshot_20110312_1.JPGSnapshot_20110312_3.JPG
mat4ney5413 years ago
hi guys the problem with getting very far with heat echangers is when pouge built his it worked quite well. but it wasnt what the oil companies wanted. so they added a mess of cfcs and hyrocrabons which burn at many different temperatures. original gas or drip gas burns at a fairly close temperature range.
now when you use the heat exchanger the cfcs burning at different temperatures plug up the exchangers and can cause explosions. to make it work you have to find the right catalist to break the bond of the cfcs. I worked on quite a few different designs and had many problems. and have since quite working on it. but one that seemed promising was the air bubbler boiler
the old datsun 240 z side draft carb was one of them woked great on many differnt engines 1100s to 2.8 with a single carb.


I see what you are talking about every day in my shed hanging on the wall. its called a "coleman lantern"  Just fill, pump and let it roar!  if you had that heated and pressurised by the engine itself then why not?
 I was thinking along these lines a while back and just couldnt get my head around the illustrations of the lanterns exploded diagram t 
Qcks4 years ago
Actually if you just wanna heat the fuel going into a motor, I'd think it'd be as easy as wrapping the fuel line around an exhaust line a few times.

That said, preheating the fuel isn't necessarily helpful and may even be dangerous, depending on the exact setup. Still, there are reasons to do it. For example, if you're trying to run straight vegetable oil through a modern fuel injected vehicle preheating the vegetable oil is a good idea.
Green Energy Funding:
I made a clean burning gasoline fuel vaporizer for a 5hp engine that produces 2x more hp with 50% less gasoline with almost no carbon monoxide. I need funding for this fuel system & other clean energy projects. Please donate any amount on my website and watch my videos, thanks. Don Fairbanks http://fuelvaporizer.blogspot.com
tedison.jpg