Gas mileage question.

Is it possible to, say, get 200 mpg on a standard internal combustion engine? Why do we NEED catylitic converters? Why don't cars ever run at 100% efficientcy? It seems like everywhere you look, cars eat gas like man drink beer. What is a Supercarburator? How do they work? I saw a website (or 2) (or 3) (or about 300) that talked about them, but don't know what they were talking about. Can anybody help?

1. ya, if your car weighed less than 500 lbs and couldn't go faster than 30 mph, but thats hardly a car.

2. because they reduce Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Oxide emissions by some order of 90%+

3. No mechanical system ever runs at 100% efficiency, its called the law of conservation of energy.

200 mpg? Short answer...yes. However, it would be a very small engine in a very light vehicle. Could it be built to current safety and emission standards and keep up with traffic? Doubtful. Think moped on a diet. Converters are needed because current engines emit gases that are harmful to the atmosphere, animals (us too) and ecology. The government has standards for the emissions and most cars would not pass without one. Efficiency...I assume you mean 'why don't engines run at 100% efficiency?'....because 100% of the energy in current fuels cannot be turned into useful power by current engine technology(25 to 35%). Supercarbs...well, there are a lot of stories, but little proof. Carburetors do only two things..1) convert liquid fuel to vapor fuel and 2) meter the fuel into the airstream at the correct mixture. Currently, fuel injection does a better job in both catergories. Super-mileage carb stories have been around a long time.

You can't convert 100% of the energy in the fuel into mechanical work, to do that the exhaust must have the same temperature as the intake air, there may be no friction in the engine and it may not run any hotter than ambient temperature.

1 kg of nromal gasoline contains 43 MJ of energy, gasoline engines are as most 30-40% efficient. At part throttle they are even less efficient due to the large pumping losses.
To get a low fuel consumption the most important issues are a low drag, an efficient small engine which can operate at full throttle at cruise and a low weight to decrease power needed to accelerate the car.

Have you heard about for example Shell Eco-Marathon? It's a competition where you are supposed to get as long as possible with the fuel you get. The team that won last year got 9700 miles per gallon on gasoline.

Catalytic converters are "three way" catalysts, they convert:
1. NOx into N2 and O2
2. HC into H2O and CO2
3. CO into CO2

HC? WTF? you mean un-burnt hydrocarbons. NOx? not following your compounds here. anyways there are gasoline/electric cars that get in excess of 300mpg. toyota is currently working one one. problem is with such a small engine not much power is avalable and the car wont be able to reach very high top speeds, meaning that they are not in production because they couldnt travel at the normal floww of traffic on roads such as expressways where the normal flow of traffic is in excess of 75mph. and going less than the normal flow of traffic is extremely dangerous (even if yo uare doing the speed limit and everyone else isnt). a gasoline negine cant work ar 100% effciency because in order for it to do so the exaust tempatures would have to be the same as intake tempatures (as sabb said, ive found out most of the time he knows what he is talking about and i only do some of the time ;) ) this is because a gasoline negine gets its power my burning fule. when fule burns it expands causeing an increased pressure to do mechanical work while trying to get from an area of high to an area of low pressure. in order for an engine to work at high effeicency the pressure would have to become equal with ambient air pressure (14.7 PSI) by the bottom of the stroke. a stroke this long would be massive and just cant be done. since the pressure cant be lowered enough to lower the gas temp to that which it was before it was burned energy is lost and blow out the exaust. the use of a turbo harneses some of that exaust energy but not enough to raise effency to near 100%. some of the most effecient internal combustion engines are very large 2 storke diesels (as much as 65%) and airplane prop engines (as much as 50% on very high octane leaded gasoline) .

NOx is a catch all for all Oxides of Nitrogen

Throw this curve at ya all.
A normal 455 ci v8 (carbureted) with hood scoop and headers uses standard 87 octane unleaded gasoline to get 86 MPG and an estimated 360 hp.
Explain that with your mini engine theories...
Let me assure you, until you see one for yourself, you won't believe it possible.

Is it possible to, say, get 200 mpg on a standard internal combustion engine?

that was a urban legend about a secret prototype car that got 200MPG, that accidently got sold at a dealership, then was tracked down by R&D, somebody saw two guys messing with it at night, then it got 20MPG. URBAN LEGEND

however, if you use hyrdogen with a lean mixture, combo'd with a hybrid system, small car, a specially designed engine and proper aerodynamics, you could easilly get 200MPG

Why don't cars ever run at 100% efficientcy?

its impossible, they knew that 150 years ago. most internal combustion engines must convert linear motion to rotory motion, the mazda rotory engine is more efficient then most others, but have zippo torque.

Why do we NEED catylitic converters?

so a little kid can wrap his lips around the tail pipe (just kidding, don't try)

Throw this curve at ya all.
A normal 455 ci v8 (carbureted) with hood scoop and headers uses standard 87 octane unleaded gasoline to get 86 MPG and an estimated 360 hp.
Explain that with your mini engine theories...
Let me assure you, until you see one for yourself, you won't believe it possible.

maybe if you put it in a go-kart frame and play around with the cylinder head. show us....

lets add it up
that 455 can get 86 mpg ??????
okay lets lean up the a/f and drive it with minimum load at 5 miles an hour
an estimated 360 horsepower????
no dyno? did ya just guess?
first off 360 is not an impressive number when running 455 ci
whats the point of a big block if you're making less power than a mild tune small block?
and like sierrap said
wheres the proof

HC? WTF? you mean un-burnt hydrocarbons. NOx? .

if you ever got your car inspected thats what is listed(in percent) and that is what they look at to determine if youre going to pass or not.

I will try and explain it a different way. Does anybody know what happens when gas evaporates? It expands, right? Any liquid that turns to a gas expands. Alot. Hint:ever noticed that on a very wet day, your cars emmisions decrease? Power increases? Do you know why?

Oh, and 360 is about standard factory horsepower for that motor. There are, as you say, ones that get more, but the princlipal holds true for those as well. It doesn't matter if it has specialty racing parts or not.

Please explain why emmisions decrease and power increases on a damp day.
(Higher humidity=less oxygen????)

Damp/humid air has a greater density that dry air does. when it gets into the high heat of the motor, most of the water evaporates (liquid --> gas, big surface area expansion) either in the manifold or the cylinders, and you have more air in the motor than the computer knows about. Also, gasoline normally evaporates in the motor, but the amount is not significant enough for the car to run on the evaporated gasoline. When you have the wet air, the chances of a given amount of gasoline evaporating increase, and even though the computer sees a correct exhaust mixture throught the o2 sensor, you really used more air for the same amount of gas. It's advanced chemistry, and I don't expect you to understand it. You might be asking "why don't we heat the gas up enough so that we can run the motor entirely on gas vapors, then?" It is possible. When a gasoline changes to a gas from a liquid, it expands it's original surface area. That, and the gasoline molecule in its gaseous state is normally very reactive to hydrogen and oxygen, and when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen (water-or-rain), it produces methanol and methane. The two chemicals combined produce a "percussion" explosion, rather than a heat explosion. A motor that correctly untilizes this method is the official definition of a supercarbureted system. It is like using gasoline to make propane (which is what the correct mixture smells similar to), and eliminating hazards to our environment. To visualize (not 100% to scale),
Start with this much gas vapor.
ggg
add this much water vapor.
wwwwwwwww
and you get this much methanol/methane
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If you did notice the increase in gas mileage and power, you noticed that it wasn't very substantial, but it was there. The reason the current vehicles don't get the huge gas mileage as this system allows is because, even though they say the gas you are buying is unleaded, it really isn't. Lead is a type of preventative. It can be used to prevent methane and methanol from forming because it takes the reactivity out of the gasoline molecule, and every oil company intentionally puts a lead additive into their oil to prevent this reaction from happening. It still happens, but not to an extent that it can be utilized without filtering out the lead. Simply spraying a fine mist of water into the air breather can help this process along, but only slightly until the lead is gone.
Don't believe me? Type in "200 MPG supercarburetor" in at google. you might have to look on a few pages before you find the websites, and there are a few, but you would be surprised.

Oh, and water is made up partially of oxygen, bjdm. H2O. The hydrogen is also a crucial part of the process.

but wouldnt the hydrogen molecules take up space that could be occupied by more oxygen? ive also thought that cold, dry air was the best for performance. this brings up this: what is better; more oxygen/fuel or the supercarburetor method? i never knew about the hydrogen concept; thx for the insight.

What the process is doing is converting conventional gasoline into methane and methanol. To do this, you need the hydrogen. If you mix the fuel vapors with the oxygen only, It will increase the gas mileage my only about 120%. By changing the gasoline to Methanol and Methane, which are way, way less dense, you can effectively run the motor on vapors, and thus increasing your gas mileage by 400-900%.

Thanx for not expecting me to understand Mr I'm in advanced chemistry. Damp/dense air might be more benificial in a supercarburetor, but in the world of normal function it doesn't. And yes cars do know when the air is more dense, baro, map, iat, maf, these are sensors that are used to calculate the density and volume of the air coming into the engine. Pump gas is no longer leaded, and it was used for its ability to increas octane numbers. It might prevent the formation of methanol/methane but that is not why it was used. I don't think you have this whole process down, things might work in your advanced chemistry theory, in the combustion process that we use today it ain't happening. I don't doubt that there is some process that can create 200mpg vehicles, but thats not what we are using right now. I wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, but its people like you that think you're the only ones that know that water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen that piss people off and start some shit. Thanks for the visual aid.

if you ever got your car inspected thats what is listed(in percent) and that is what they look at to determine if youre going to pass or not.

:banghead: i live in florida...no emmissions inspections here... but anyways thanks for the clarification... :thumbsup: how many different oxides of nitrogen are there... are they all ions arent they? except for N2O which would cause -8 charge and would automaticly step down to the next energy level?

I didn't mean to offend anybody, I was just stating I didn't expect a lot of people to completely understand what I was saying. And, they do put a lead based additive in your fuel. proof? Stick a subtance that only reacts to lead into a container that contains straight from the pump gasoline. It reacts. And, yes I have the process down. It will work on any motor, even a brand new one. I have seen it for myself. I don't expect a lot of people to believe me, but it's true. As a matter of fact, the newer the car, the easier. The computer will adjust for the change without doing anything to modify it. Filter the additives out, and evaporate the gasoline, and it will work. On any car. Try it, I challenge you.

lead bassed additive? WTF? they dont use anything lead anymore...aside from radiation protection and fishing weight....lol...

No harm no foul, its just that your preaching this thing like its gods gift. There have been a lot of great ideas for high effieciency vehicles out there but most have had a lot of problems. The theories put in place by this Supercarb are not what is used in normal combustion.

It is not a theory. But, just send me a personnal message if you disagree with me, please. I want to keep the forum open to those who have questions. And, yes, they use lead for more than radiation protection and fishing wheights, and it is used without modifying the mechanical process of the motor. It's not how much you put in, but where and how you put it in. I guess it isn't a big deal to those who don't think it will work, so I won't make it one for them.

Damp/humid air has a greater density that dry air does. when it gets into the high heat of the motor, most of the water evaporates (liquid --> gas, big surface area expansion) either in the manifold or the cylinders, and you have more air in the motor than the computer knows about. Also, gasoline normally evaporates in the motor, but the amount is not significant enough for the car to run on the evaporated gasoline. When you have the wet air, the chances of a given amount of gasoline evaporating increase, and even though the computer sees a correct exhaust mixture throught the o2 sensor, you really used more air for the same amount of gas. It's advanced chemistry, and I don't expect you to understand it. You might be asking "why don't we heat the gas up enough so that we can run the motor entirely on gas vapors, then?" It is possible. When a gasoline changes to a gas from a liquid, it expands it's original surface area. That, and the gasoline molecule in its gaseous state is normally very reactive to hydrogen and oxygen, and when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen (water-or-rain), it produces methanol and methane. The two chemicals combined produce a "percussion" explosion, rather than a heat explosion. A motor that correctly untilizes this method is the official definition of a supercarbureted system. It is like using gasoline to make propane (which is what the correct mixture smells similar to), and eliminating hazards to our environment. To visualize (not 100% to scale),
Start with this much gas vapor.
ggg
add this much water vapor.
wwwwwwwww
and you get this much methanol/methane
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If you did notice the increase in gas mileage and power, you noticed that it wasn't very substantial, but it was there. The reason the current vehicles don't get the huge gas mileage as this system allows is because, even though they say the gas you are buying is unleaded, it really isn't. Lead is a type of preventative. It can be used to prevent methane and methanol from forming because it takes the reactivity out of the gasoline molecule, and every oil company intentionally puts a lead additive into their oil to prevent this reaction from happening. It still happens, but not to an extent that it can be utilized without filtering out the lead. Simply spraying a fine mist of water into the air breather can help this process along, but only slightly until the lead is gone.
Don't believe me? Type in "200 MPG supercarburetor" in at google. you might have to look on a few pages before you find the websites, and there are a few, but you would be surprised.


This is by far the dumbest post I have seen in a while and i do not intend to waist my time even responding to it as a 2 year old can see the inacuracies

Damp/humid air has a greater density that dry air does. when it gets into the high heat of the motor, most of the water evaporates (liquid --> gas, big surface area expansion)

Uh... the water in the air is ALREADY EVAPORATED

either in the manifold or the cylinders, and you have more air in the motor than the computer knows about.

The computer knows about all of the air going into the engine via either the MAP or MAF.

Also, gasoline normally evaporates in the motor, but the amount is not significant enough for the car to run on the evaporated gasoline.

HUH?

When you have the wet air, the chances of a given amount of gasoline evaporating increase,

Actually, they decrease. Air can only hold a certain amount of solutes, so damp air holds LESS gasoline than dry air.

It's advanced chemistry, and I don't expect you to understand it. You might be asking "why don't we heat the gas up enough so that we can run the motor entirely on gas vapors, then?"

First of all, I have two chemistry degrees and I DO understand. Second, we don't heat the gasoline since we can atomize it mechanically and avoid the extreme danger of heating gasoline.

When a gasoline changes to a gas from a liquid, it expands it's original surface area. That, and the gasoline molecule in its gaseous state is normally very reactive to hydrogen and oxygen, and when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen (water-or-rain), it produces methanol and methane.

You are right on one thing. Vaporizing gasoline increases its surface area to oxygen. It NEVER gets its oxygen from WATER. I repeat... NEVER gets its oxygen from WATER. Nor, does it ever react with hydrogen. Gasoline is a HydroCarbon, meaning it has its own Hydrogen. Water (unless you apply huge amounts of energy) does not dissolve into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Therefore, the water you put into an engine comes out as... WATER. nothing else. The oxygen in H2O is NOT available for combustion. The Hydrogen in water is NOT available for combustion, nor is it used in combustion. If that were the case, we wouldn't need the gasoline. Just pump water in there, it would magically reduce itself to oxygen and hydrogen, and then combustion would bring them back together. Who need gasoline???

The two chemicals combined produce a "percussion" explosion, rather than a heat explosion. A motor that correctly untilizes this method is the official definition of a supercarbureted system. It is like using gasoline to make propane (which is what the correct mixture smells similar to), and eliminating hazards to our environment. To visualize (not 100% to scale),
Start with this much gas vapor.
ggg
add this much water vapor.
wwwwwwwww
and you get this much methanol/methane
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


If somone told you this, shoot him/her. There is no such thing as percussion vs. heat explosions.. they are all combustion. You don't use gasoline to make propane, you use chemical refining to make propane, and in my 30 years in the automotive world, I've never heard the term 'supercarburated". And MOST OF ALL... no form of HC combustion is harmless to the environment. Lastly. You can add as much water vapor as you want... it is not going to magically transform one complex HC into another complex HC. I challenge you to back up one tiny speck of your argument.

If you did notice the increase in gas mileage and power, you noticed that it wasn't very substantial, but it was there. The reason the current vehicles don't get the huge gas mileage as this system allows is because, even though they say the gas you are buying is unleaded, it really isn't. Lead is a type of preventative. It can be used to prevent methane and methanol from forming because it takes the reactivity out of the gasoline molecule, and every oil company intentionally puts a lead additive into their oil to prevent this reaction from happening. It still happens, but not to an extent that it can be utilized without filtering out the lead.

All I can say is.. What? I dont' understand it, but now you're saying that Lead with an atomic weight of 207.2 is randomly reactive with Oxygen with an atomic weight of 15.9994. Lead is in period 14 and oxygen is in period 16. Methane and Methanol are complex Hydrocarbons which have nothing to do with lead. Lead isn't even vaguely associated with the "-ane's" (propane, methane, hexane, butane, heptane...) Not to mention, your whole argument was based on 86 mpgs, but now you're saying, "...you noticed it wasn't very substantial, but it was there..." I would expect 15 mpgs from this magical 455, so 86 mpgs is not substantial???

Simply spraying a fine mist of water into the air breather can help this process along, but only slightly until the lead is gone.

That's like saying, "you can beat your children, but only until their bruises are gone." I used to work for the big oil companies and still have many friends who are engineers for big companies. I can't say the company names, but their initials are ExMbl. There is no lead in today's gasoline. If there were, my friends would be in jail.

Don't believe me? Type in "200 MPG supercarburetor" in at google. you might have to look on a few pages before you find the websites, and there are a few, but you would be surprised.

Well, I checked out that search. I came up with a guy who says (direct quote from the site), "The type of fuel used dictates the amount of propulsion (useful energy) and heat (wasted energy) generated. A fuel that explodes generates more propulsion and less heat than a fuel that burns..." ........ I can't believe this crap. The type of fuel has NOTHING to do with it. Its how the machine uses the energy. Paper burns slowly. That's why its not used as automotive fuel. Hydrogen burns hot and quick. That's why its not used as automotive fuel. All fuels in combustion generate HEAT. Its how the machine uses that heat that determines its efficiency. Who cares what fuel it is. This guy tries to separate propulsion and heat. They are ONE AND THE SAME. An engine that uses heat well is efficient. One that doesn't... isn't.

My apologies for the rant, but if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post your conjecture on the AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING FORUM.

God am I glad somebody with a double chem majors stepped into this forum. I know enough to know that this stuff was wrong, i just couldn't construct the argument. Thank you Curtis :worshippy

I wanted to break this one down too, but again, curtis... i love you... Being a ME major, I have a little bit of chemistry behind me. All of the sudden H20 is reactive? (Because we all know that you NEVER throw water on a fire, it will cause a huge reaction) I see your retort now, "Well thats H20 in its liquid form, not its gaseous form" H20 going from liquid to gaseous is a PHYSICAL change, thats 6th grade material right there. Whether in liquid or gaseous, its still H20. The reason you can get more power out of a slightly humid day is to the fact that H20 doesn't compress. Now the moist air is taken into the cylinder, The higher H20 content doesn't allow for the air to be compressed as much. This raises the combustion chamber pressures, causing for a higher cylinder pressures. No, this is not a huge secrete, there are several places where you can get water injection systems for heavily modified cars. But these are pretty limited to diesels which are built for these higher pressures. Just dumping non evaportated water into a motor is dumb. 1 teaspoon of H20 in liquid form can bring the combustion chamber to dangerous pressures even causing hydrolock.

Also, gasoline normally evaporates in the motor, but the amount is not significant enough for the car to run on the evaporated gasoline.

Uhh, the gasoline is atomized as soon as it leaves the carburator/fuel injector. The goal is to have the gasoline in a fine mist/vaporized

That's like saying, "you can beat your children, but only until their bruises are gone."
hahaha

I know what I am talking about, believe it or not.
An engine that gets hot is more efficient? So, if I make a car run at 500 degees Celcius, it will be twice as efficient as cars are now? That is true for a heating device, such as a curling iron or a water heater, but not for a motor.

Why use a fuel that loses energy to heat in the explosion process? If it doesn't generate heat, then all of the energy of the explosion is being used in the explosion, and not lost through the transfer of heat..

Oh, if you are a double chem major, which I don't doubt, go ahead and run gasoline through a filter to filter out the additive (lead-based), evaporate it, and blow it up. Redo the experiment along with evaporated water. Then, do the experiment without filtering the gasoline. See what it smells like, propane, or gas? You will find out just how wrong you are.

Propane, used in internal cumbustion, doesn't produce toxins, and is therefore used in warehouses to power their trucks and so forth.

I know what I am talking about, believe it or not.
An engine that gets hot is more efficient? So, if I make a car run at 500 degees Celcius, it will be twice as efficient as cars are now? That is true for a heating device, such as a curling iron or a water heater, but not for a motor.

Why use a fuel that loses energy to heat in the explosion process? If it doesn't generate heat, then all of the energy of the explosion is being used in the explosion, and not lost through the transfer of heat..

Oh, if you are a double chem major, which I don't doubt, go ahead and run gasoline through a filter to filter out the additive (lead-based), evaporate it, and blow it up. Redo the experiment along with evaporated water. Then, do the experiment without filtering the gasoline. See what it smells like, propane, or gas? You will find out just how wrong you are.

Propane, used in internal cumbustion, doesn't produce toxins, and is therefore used in warehouses to power their trucks and so forth.

I feel helplees to help this poor soul... anyways. Thermal expansion is a good subject to read up on oh and the heat created by the fuel through the combustion process is energy -->HEAT IS ENERGY<---. you can't loose heat to energy thats sort of like saying I lost MY car keys to MYSELF.

First of all, allow me to apologize to buickmastermind. My last post was nothing short of caustic and I apologize. I was a little too spunky, but you took the high road and took my flaming in stride. My sincere apologies for the nature of the post.

I see what you're saying about heat, but heat is always one of the forms of energy given off in an explosion. I'm AM saying that a hotter engine runs more efficiently since it gets a greater amount of energy for combustion. With exothermic reactions, it takes energy to get energy. Hence, why the air/fuel is compressed to about a tenth its original volume. This is not to be confused with how much power a hot engine makes, NOR with its MPG since MPG has little to do with efficiency. There may be our difference. So many times those two terms are interchanged, but efficiency has to do with how much of the chemical energy gets to the ground, but MPG does not. Then we're talking about BSFC and driving style. Engines like to be hot; DRIVERS like them to be cool. The temperature of the engine is a net balance of heat in vs. heat out. Its possible for a 600 hp engine to run at 150 degrees water, and its possible for a 60 hp engine to run at 250 degrees water. It has nothing to do with how efficient they are, its just how much heat can be exhanged out. Also don't confuse heat with temperature. Totally different things. I guarantee the cooler 600 hp example above has more heat than the higher temperature 60-hp example. If you can swallow that, then we're on the same page.

It mostly boils down to the type of engine we've settled for in the world and the types of fuel that work best in them. Fuel explodes, makes heat energy, light energy, sound energy, and kinetic energy, along with traces of other forms. The engine can use about 30% of those. But, as I pointed out later, even if we doubled that efficiency, we wouldn't double the MPGs. Whole different animal.

Propane, used in internal cumbustion, doesn't produce toxins, and is therefore used in warehouses to power their trucks and so forth.

so carbon monoxide isn't a toxin?

sitting back...letting buck argue with people who know what they are talking about (im not even gonna get into this one...me having HS chemistry and curtis73 being a double chemistry major)...i do, however, know that propane (and all hydrocarbons for that matter) produces carbonmonoxide when burned. dont think carbonmonoxide is harmful? go get in a clauset with a prpane stove and burn away untill you die or wakeup with carbonmonoxide poisining in the hospital...

I agree that heat is energy, but if the explosion is creating heat, then it is not being 100% efficent in creating mechanical energy. A 100% efficiant explosion shouldn't create heat, should it? If you eliminate the excess energy that is there, the efficiency of the explosion should be 100%. Now, the motor will not be 100% efficient itself, but all the energy going into it will be turned to mechanical energy, with no excess heat. The friction in the bearing and such will create some heat, but not 150 degrees worth. Heat is energy, and the motor is losing heat to itself, but the process of turning chemical energy to mechanical energy is losing energy because it creates heat. Without some kind of boiler, heat energy cannot be turned to mechanical energy, so it serves only one purpose to the car. Heating the inside during winter, and if all excess heat went into the car, that wouldn't be good. A simple electric heater uses less energy to warm the car than warming up the entire motor, radiator, and heating coils, wouldn't you agree? I think I might have restated things that were already said by others, but a standard combustion motor can run on things other than gasoline, particularily when you break the gasoline molecule down in evaporation.

Acids react to water because water pulls a hydrogen molecule off of the acid, not vice versa. Water also pulls the hydrogen molecules off of the gasoline molecule, allowing it to break down further into other molecules because it has a hydrogen defficiency.

I agree that heat is energy, but if the explosion is creating heat, then it is not being 100% efficent in creating mechanical energy. A 100% efficiant explosion shouldn't create heat, should it? If you eliminate the excess energy that is there, the efficiency of the explosion should be 100%. Now, the motor will not be 100% efficient itself, but all the energy going into it will be turned to mechanical energy, with no excess heat. The friction in the bearing and such will create some heat, but not 150 degrees worth. Heat is energy, and the motor is losing heat to itself, but the process of turning chemical energy to mechanical energy is losing energy because it creates heat. Without some kind of boiler, heat energy cannot be turned to mechanical energy, so it serves only one purpose to the car. Heating the inside during winter, and if all excess heat went into the car, that wouldn't be good. A simple electric heater uses less energy to warm the car than warming up the entire motor, radiator, and heating coils, wouldn't you agree? I think I might have restated things that were already said by others, but a standard combustion motor can run on things other than gasoline, particularily when you break the gasoline molecule down in evaporation.


Heat is energy you are right. Heat is what causes the expansion of the gases in the combustion chamber. This heat produces the pressure that in turn makes your engine work. Part of the heat energy is absorbed through convection by your cooling system. Another part is lost through your exhaust. I'm not entirely sure why your saying heat energy cannot be turned into mechanical energy.

One question out of the blue: Why do they call a radiator a radiator? Shouldn't it be along the lines of a heat exchanger since the heat is being transfered between a solid and a liquid?

its called a radiator because it "radiates" excess heat. and Buick...if you read my post on why engines dont work at 100% energy use then yo uwould know why... its on the 1st page of this form 4th reply...

I know that a motor can't 100% efficient. All of the resistance caused by A/C, P/S, Altenator, water pump, SCs, belts, and so forth prevent that. But the explosion in the cylinder should be. If it were, way, way less heat would be created than what normally is because all of the energy would be used in ignition, not creating heat to cause ignition. Dispersing the heat isn't the problem. Having as much as there is is pointless. If you reduce heat, you reduce engine wear, and fluid wear. Less of those plastic intake manifolds cracking...

:) You are sure that propane produces CO then? I didn't realize that a propane motor produced a toxic amount of CO (CO is toxic if it is concentrated enough) that it can't be used in warehouse settings. I guess being in a warehouse where they use trucks that run on propane as opposed to deisel or gasoline has made me unaware of the CO produced by the combustion of it. Maybe the explosion inside the cylinder is almost 100% efficient, and they produce so little it has a very minimul effect on anything surrounding it. The propane changes it's physicle state to a gas as soon as it is injected into the manifold. I know, I have converted 3 305 v8's to the system. A gas burns more efficiently than a liquid because you don't need a huge volumn of heat to burn it. It readily ignites. Many warning labels that concern this say "warning, do not expose to spark. Fumes may ignite". I don't see anything there about a liquid. sparks don't really create heat, and that is why some of the fuel from the injectors is meant to evaporate. A liquid with flammable fumes needs to be heated to it's flash point to explode. Fumes simply need a spark.

*propane stoves are used to create heat out of propane, not explode it. A percussion explosion won't cook a hotdog.

Actually when an engine is under load its efficiency increases. This also includes full throttle, although your fuel mileage will decrease... sorry i can't give a very clear explaination.

By increasing the compression of the air/fuel charge in the cylinder we increase the efficiency by liberating more of the chemical energy stored in the fuel through the combustion process... thats why diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines because of the higher compression ratios used.

Spark is hot your just not exposed to it long enough to get burned...now people who have been struck by lightning have burns.

Propane in its natural state is in a gaseous form.....I've frost burned myself with propane, explain that.

its called a radiator because it "radiates" excess heat. and Buick...if you read my post on why engines dont work at 100% energy use then yo uwould know why... its on the 1st page of this form 4th reply...

The reason I ask this is mainly due that the main function of the cooling system is based on convection, not radiation. If a radiator only radiated heat your car would surly overheat within minutes. The water that flows through the radiator and through your engine has the biggest impact on keeping your engine running cool. Hense the name heat exchanger instead.

Still going at this. Please take these seriously, theres no reason in being stubborn. No, a motor is not 100% efficient. Heat is NOT a loss of energy, HEAT IS ENERGY. Absolute 0, (0 Kelvin) is named that for the fact where that is the point where there is NO energy/NO heat. All molecules cease to move. The burning of the fuel is a lot more efficient then the transfer of energy. When the fuel is ignited the fuels potential energy is released in the form of heat. Yes, other factors produce heat, but those sources of heat are all coming from the energy initially released in the combustion process. The motor harnesses the REACTION of this conversion from fuel to heat. An engine that doesn't burn all of the fuel is said to be running rich. The heat and unburned fuel is passed out of the exhaust. There is a major loss of energy right there. Other losses include yes, friction within the motor. A motor that is 100% efficient would have no heat coming out of the exhaust nor any unburned fuel. It would have converted all of the chemical energy in to mechanical energy. This is IMPOSSIBLE due to the fact that heat is lost in many places, including the radiator and the surface of the motor. A 100% effecient explosion WILL create heat. The only way to get the reaction to 100% efficiency is to have the chemical equation completely balanced. (yes, if you remove the excess POTENTIAL energy, (the rest of the equation) the reaction should have been 100% efficient) Gasoline engines, Steam engines, Nuclear engines, ALL involve heat.

A simple electric heater uses less energy to warm the car than warming up the entire motor, radiator, and heating coils, wouldn't you agree?
WRONG. The motor is constantly converting/losing energy. An electric heater requires the alternator to produce electricity to power it. The motor in turn powers the alternator. The energy consumption between the different systems is the same.

Many warning labels that concern this say "warning, do not expose to spark. Fumes may ignite". I don't see anything there about a liquid.So you're saying that "fuels in liquid form don't burn when exposed to an igntition source, they have to be in their gaseous state"? Take a gallon of gasoline in a bucket, and throw a match in... tell me that doesn't burn. Its going to burn SLOWER than vaporized gasoline due to the fact that it has LESS surface area. But the same amount of energy will be there.

sparks don't really create heat
The spark on a spark plug runs a spark between 500-850 Celcius. The rest of the plug is designed to dissipate heat to prevent pre-ignition.

Lead is a type of preventative. It can be used to prevent methane and methanol from forming because it takes the reactivity out of the gasoline molecule
Lead was intially in fuels for wear purposes. It used to be that older motors which had hardened valve seats. These would score easily causing engine failure. The lead would absorb damaging particles by adding a protective coating. If you ever get the chance. On a new engine main. If you can, run your finger nail through the inside of it. It scores/divets EXTREMELY easily. This is to absorb any foreign particles that could damage the rotating parts. The lead that used to be added, tetraethyl (I belive) is no where near reactive with H20.

Propane, used in internal cumbustion, doesn't produce toxins, and is therefore used in warehouses to power their trucks and so forth. The reason propane is used is to the fact that it burns cleaner. Not free from toxins, but with less carbons put into the exhaust. Taking a diesel which has a lot of carbons, vs a gasoline, vs a propane. Propane has the least amount of carbons coming out of the exhaust, keeping the inside walls of buildings cleaner. It is also used for the fact that propane is in a sealed environment where as gasoline fuems can leak. Also, propane can be allowed to sit for longer periods of time with out the hydrocarbons breaking down.

in ignition, not creating heat to cause ignition Uhhhh...
You're contradicting yourself. Ignition is the initial energy to get the process of converting the fuel into energy (HEAT). The ignition is started by the spark plug, yes residual heat through the cylinder helps. The heat is the energy throughout the whole system. Other than the ladder, that whole statement you said makes no sense.

You're basically saying that the reaction from the fuel converting into heat should be 100% efficient. Which I agree with. However, you're trying to take it to the fact that, with that 100% efficient reaction, you need less potential energy. This gives you less power.

Easy terms, you're saying that heat is pointless... so lets recap
Heat=Energy
Less Heat= Less Energy
Less Fuel= Less Energy
Less Fuel=Less Energy=Less Heat

And by less energy, you have less power. You can't run 350 HP with that little fuel, it still takes a certain amount of fuel to creat that much energy. The reason cars use radiators and such to disperse heat is the mettalurgy of the materials. They weren't meant to operate at such high temperatures. You're essentially saying, you can cut fuel(potential energy) by 200% and still have the potential energy. You're calling it heat on one side of the equation and naming it energy on the other side and treating them as two different variables.
Thats as far as I can pick out.

Propane in its natural state is in a gaseous form.....I've frost burned myself with propane, explain that. Let me guess, you've frost burned yourself on it as you were letting out of its compressed container? LP GAS (LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS) is liquid under high pressures. Now, without an ignition source as well as a a reactant (oxygen) you're missing two parts of the triangle for combustion. The reason it frost burned you is its rapid expansion. In liquid form the molecules are close to eachother. When its depressurized it wants to go back to its gaseous state. To do so the molecules must move about quicker hense take more energy in the form of heat. They take this heat energy off of your body, since its abosorbing the heat from your body, it makes it feel cold, as such, frost burn.

Anything else left to clear up?

Joe

I wanted to break this one down too, but again, curtis... i love you... Being a ME major, I have a little bit of chemistry behind me. All of the sudden H20 is reactive? (Because we all know that you NEVER throw water on a fire, it will cause a huge reaction) I see your retort now, "Well thats H20 in its liquid form, not its gaseous form" H20 going from liquid to gaseous is a PHYSICAL change, thats 6th grade material right there. Whether in liquid or gaseous, its still H20. The reason you can get more power out of a slightly humid day is to the fact that H20 doesn't compress. Now the moist air is taken into the cylinder, The higher H20 content doesn't allow for the air to be compressed as much. This raises the combustion chamber pressures, causing for a higher cylinder pressures. No, this is not a huge secrete, there are several places where you can get water injection systems for heavily modified cars. But these are pretty limited to diesels which are built for these higher pressures. Just dumping non evaportated water into a motor is dumb. 1 teaspoon of H20 in liquid form can bring the combustion chamber to dangerous pressures even causing hydrolock.


i'll just add a little to this - H2O, liquid or gas, is H2O. if you wanted the H2 and O2 by them self, you need electrolysis, which isn't hard at all as i understand it, just add voltage, even 12V should be enough.

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm

this guy has a water injection system. gas mileage increase? zero. but the inside of his engine i bet is really clean.

http://www.saturnfans.com/forums/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=35581



are we done yet?

I don't mean this post to be offesive, so please don't take it that way :).


"The motor is constantly converting/losing energy. "
"Heat is NOT a loss of energy"
So, how does the motor lose energy? If a motor is creating a large amount of heat energy, it is not efficiently creating mechanical energy.

This is a type of percussion explosion:
Ever ignited a firecracker in your palm? It causes a small burn. Close your fist around it and ignite it, you won't be using that hand for the rest of your life.

And, a heat explosion:
A nuclear missile is fired onto a the surface of a test island. That island no longer exists.

Heat explosions are used to destroy by surface contact. Percussion explosions are used to destroy by being contained. A smaller explosion can produce the same effect as a larger explosion by simply containing it inside an object, as opposed to placing a huge one on the surface.


"Its going to burn SLOWER than vaporized gasoline due to the fact that it has LESS surface area. But the same amount of energy will be there."
"Take a gallon of gasoline in a bucket, and throw a match in... tell me that doesn't burn."
Yes, fuel burns. Burns. It expands while burning, but not at the same rate as an explosion

"It would have converted all of the chemical energy in to mechanical energy. This is IMPOSSIBLE due to the fact that heat is lost in many places"
"When the fuel is ignited the fuels potential energy is released in the form of heat."
All this potential energy and heat energy is being lost...it's almost tragic.

"The lead that used to be added, tetraethyl (I belive) is no where near reactive with H20."
Ahh, exaclty. It doesn't react with H2O, so water won't normally react to the gasoline molecule to which it is attached. And, any molecule that prevents this reaction is called lead-based, even if it isn't lead. They are in our fuel to prevent this process.

"but with less carbons put into the exhaust"
"carbon monoxide"
Why not use these carbons that become left over before they are burned? You seem to be forgetting that the water is added to change the gasoline to methanol and methane. Add it up, when gasoline molecules and water molecules react, they will form those two chemicals, among others. Ask our resident double Chemistry major what H3O is. Because the H2O molecule stole the one H molecule from the gasoline molecule, it allows the further breakdown of the gasoline molecule.


"Ignition is the initial energy to get the process of converting the fuel into energy (HEAT). The ignition is started by the spark plug, yes residual heat through the cylinder helps. The heat is the energy throughout the whole system."
Igniting liquid Gasoline requires that residual heat. It not just helps, it makes the ignition possible. If you evaporate the gas, it has already gained a huge amount of energy, and requires very little to detonate. No residual heat needed. A gas takes up more surface area than a liquid, therefore you can use less of it to fill a certain area than if you used a liquid. You fill the cylinder with evap. gas, using less total gas for the same result.

"It is also used for the fact that propane is in a sealed environment where as gasoline fuems can leak"
If you seal off gasoline, it won't leak out, either. What you're saying is that if I let my car sit for two years, all the gas will evaporate out of my pressurized gas tank. wow.

"the fuel converting into heat should be 100% efficient"
No, I am saying the fuel converting to MECHANICAL energy should be 100% efficient, creating little or no heat at all.

"Let me guess, you've frost burned yourself on it as you were letting out of its compressed container? LP GAS (LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS) is liquid under high pressures. Now, without an ignition source as well as a a reactant (oxygen) you're missing two parts of the triangle for combustion. The reason it frost burned you is its rapid expansion. In liquid form the molecules are close to eachother. When its depressurized it wants to go back to its gaseous state. To do so the molecules must move about quicker hense take more energy in the form of heat. They take this heat energy off of your body, since its abosorbing the heat from your body, it makes it feel cold, as such, frost burn."

The rapid expansion frost burned his hand. It also pulls energy from the air around it. Hence the reason of pre-evaporating the gasoline. It gets all the energy it needs from the air. All that is left for it to do is be exposed to a spark, such as static electricity, which I can guarentee doesn't "run" anywhere near 500 degrees celcius. if it did, then we would be in trouble...

"I'll just add a little to this - H2O, liquid or gas, is H2O. if you wanted the H2 and O2 by them self, you need electrolysis, which isn't hard at all as i understand it, just add voltage, even 12V should be enough."
Not trying to separate the H and O in the water molecule! It is being introduced to the gasoline molecule so that it forms H3O by removing one of the hydrogen molecules from the gasoline, which will cause a further breakdown of the gasoline molecule.

Oh, the only reason the inside of my motor might be cleaner than any other is because of the oil I use. It doesn't come in a yellow container. It isn't synthetic, either.

Buick you still did not completely understand my post. the exaust WOULD HAVE TO BE JUST AS COOL AS THE INTAKE TO RUN AT 100% EFFICIECY. this is because when combustion occures Heat (ie. energy) is released in an exothermic reaction (hydro carbons splitting and carbons reacting with oxygen and a few other reactions with nitrogen and hydrogen etc...) as you should know when a gas is heated it expands. this creates a high pressure on tip of the piston which pushes the piston down. as the piston moves further and further down the tempatures in the cylender become lower and lower. this is because the heat (energy) is being lost to the mechanical decompresion (the piston moving down). its like why you get frost bite from propane. or why CO2 is cold when coming out of a cylender. you have so much energy (heat) in a certian ammount of matter. when that energy has to be spread out with the spreading out of the matter it gets colder. because the stroke of even the largest of diesels isnt long enough to let the gases expand to the tempature they where on the intake stroke not all of the thermal energy (heat) is turned into mechanical energy and is pushed out of the engine on the exaust stroke. and your statements about fule not being a vapor in a gasoline engine. well in fule injected engines it is very often that fule is injected onto the back side of the inake valve on all strokes except the intake stroke. the exaust vualve will be hot since it is a part of the surface area of the combustion chamber. and as i already covered not all thermal energy will be turned into mechanical energy and will be excess thermal energy will be lost in the exaust stroke and some will linger in the engine block and heads. so anyway, the back of the exaust vualve is very hot and will immediatly vaporise any liquid gasoline that hits it. on top of the fact that most injectors spray the mist so fine that the gasoline is practicly vaporized when it is injected. carburated engines, however, use the carburator to turn liquid fule into a gas. that is the whole point of a carburator. im not exactly sure WHY they use propane for fork lifts and all in ware houses. but it sure as im typeing this isnt because they dont produce CO. it is very common for idiots to be using a propane stove inside and get CO poisining if they dont have proper vetalation. and warehouses are large and poory ventalated. get enough fork lifts running at one time there will be a build up of CO. and CO hurts us whether its concentrated or there is only 1m of it. it is bad for us (unlike CO2) because the hemoglobin in red blood cells will absorb it, but will not be bale to release it. and the cells will die after a while if they do not get a supply of oxygen. because even blood cells need oxygen to live. if you inhale just a little but of CO you wont feel a thing because there will still be enough red bllod cells to supply your brain and body with oxygen. but get enough and kill enough red blood cells you will feel fatigue and in extreme cases faint, and if not moved to a properly ventalated place, die because of lack of oxygen to the brain. you can be saved if a small blood transfusion is given and are on an oxygen breather for a while. CO is nothing to fool around with and any fule refined from crude oil will create CO when burned. Gasoline (petrol), diesel, propane, butane, kerosine, are all made form crude oil. im not going into how. its a process of heating and cooling the crude oil making it split into its different hydro carbons...thats all im saying...this post was long enough and has enough spelling errors...lol

Note:
-CO is harmfull and created by all bruning of hydro carbons
-Heat is energy
-Expansion due to combustion of gases causes heat if the expansion is not allowed to be rapid enough or is not allowed to reach maximum volume
-this results in heat not being turned into mechanical energy
-propane is a hydro carbon
-Fule injection sprays a very fine mist towards the intake valve, the valve is hot and any liquid that comes in contact will be vaporised (turned into vapor)
-get over it, i cant spell

- All fuels have carbon, any unused carbon and oxygen are turned into CO
-During the combustion, there is a lot of heat, Fuel exits the injector/carb in liquid form as tiny droplets (yes tiny droplets in liquid form) and imediatly starts absorbing heat. Small amounts of alchohols in fuel help reduce temps of the A/F mix prior to combustion be cause they have a high latent heat of vaoporization ( the amount of energy needed to turn from a liquid to a gas.)
-So prior to combustion, most of the fuel is vaporized, this doesn't mean broken down into singular atoms, that happens when the spark ignites the mix and burns.
-oxygen and fuel cannot be broken down into propanes prior to ignition in the normal combestion process. (keyword normal combustion process.)
-can we stop calling it an axplosion? this is a controlled burn people, we aren't dealing with nitro methane here

"the use of energy in the conventional normal combustion engine"
by BJ Moore (me)

Prior to Air/Fuel mix entering the combustion chamber there is residual energy in the cylinder, mostly held by interior cylinder surfaces in the form of heat. The fuel in the A/F mix is absorbing energy even before it reaches the cylinder (energy in the form of heat that has been transfered to the manifold and other surfaces.) By the time the A/F enters the chamber, it is already holding a lot of energy. The piston is moving down, drawing in that wonderful mix, hopefully creating some good turbulence, the mix is absorbing more energy from the cylinder surfaces and getting (hopefully) complete vaporization, cylinder coming back up, more turbulence, more energy absorbed, piston reaching close to the top.
Now at this moment prior to the spark plug going snap, or snap snap snap snap in the case of a little MSD, this compressed mix of gases (I say gases because it is all in the gaseous form, including H2O water, wich in its gaseus form can be compressed) has not absorbed enogh energy to turn into methane or any other -ane other than the original -ane that it was, be it cycloheptane or propane. Moving on.
Spark goes and the fuel ignites (not explodes!) During this process, more energy is being released, but not all of it goes into pushing the piston down. A lot of it goes back into the cylinder surfaces, we don't want the engine to hold all of that energy as heat because it would lead to engine failure, so we try to draw some of it out with our coolant. Now the piston is moving down. The flame front doesn't push it all the way down till it reaches the bottom of its stroke, i forget the estimated position where the flame front stops contributing, but the piston is accelerating faster do to the engines geometry and the fact that another flame front on top of another piston is turning the crankshaft at this point.
Now the piston is coming back up, the exhast valve is open and pushing out these spent gases that are now different gases altogethor because they absorbed some of that combustion energy joining with other unburned stuff and burned stuff to create other stuff, CO NOx etc. If we also have a slower burning fuel or a really rich mix some fuel still might be burning as it exits, still releasing energy, but going out of the exhaust. proper exhaust temps are about 1500 degrees F.
Now if an engine were 100% effeicient (as mentioned earlier) the exhaust would be about the same temperature as the air we are taking into the engine and we would also not need any cooling system.


As much as i would love to write some more, most people have turne d away from this already and i have to go do some homework for both of my stats classes this afternoon.

thank you all for reading this
if you need help please call the suicide assitence line

There is a difference between burning a gas (the propane stove) and causing fumes to explode (forklift and truck motors). A fire isn't exploding, unless you put an erosol spray can into it...Current motors burn the fuel. You can cause an explosion with a small amount of fuel. To burn, you need considerably mor. The whole point of the system is to change it from a burning process to an explosion process.

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and isobutain are organic hydrocarbons known as alkanes. They are not created from crude oil, but together with a complex mixture of alkenes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic compounds form crude oil. Crude oil in turn is used to produce Gasoline, Kerosene, heating and lubricating oils. You can take the products above, and cause them to react to other particles to get back to the basic structures, which is what a supercarbureted system does. Gasoline, which can have anywhere between 6-12 carbon atoms in it, will react to evaporated water when evaporated to produce methanol, CH3OH. With the gasoline molecule defficient by 1 Carbon molecule and 2 Hydrogen molecules, it will further break down to a given amount of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), and propane (C3H8). Methane, ethane, and propane combine to form a natural gas. The best way to describe it is that it is like taking back all the energy that was used in the process to make the gasoline in the first place.

The fine mist a fuel injector is supposed to put out isn't very fine. It is more like a stream. A fine mist would only be injected about 1-2 feet at 35psi. A not so fine of a mist is sprayed up to four feet.
A brand new fuel injector sprays the gasoline at least 5 feet. You can test that yourself easily enough. The fuel isn't being misted into the cylinders, it is being sprayed.

Here is proof of the lead additive in a gasoline. Notice how it is worded:

"The octane rating of hydrocarbons can be improved by the addition of small quantities of compounds called "antiknocking agents". Among the most widely udes antiknocking agents are the following;
CH3
|
CH2 CH3
| |
CH3-CH2-Pb-CH2-CH3 CH3-Pb-CH3
| |
CH2 CH3
|
CH3
tetraethyllead tetramethyllead
...The catylitic converters with which late-model automobiles are equipped can be "poisoned" by lead...To minimize knocking, unleaded gasolines contain methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline." (Raymond Chang, seventh edition chemistry)

It has the same effect as the lead does. Hmmm. I wonder why it's there. Surely not to minimize knocking in an unleaded motor? Only diesel "knocks."
A though about diesel motors. The diesel is not ignited by a spark. The heat comes from being compressed. It produces all the heat heat needed to ignite simply by compressing. Unleaded engines compress the gas considarably...Electric energy does not eaqual heat energy. A diesel should have better gas mileage, better torque, and less emmisions than a standard unleaded motor. Proof? The Duramax diesel by GM. NO unleaded V8 comes close to it in all three respects.

Notice the second paragraph. All C atoms and O atoms are being used.

There is a difference between burning a gas (the propane stove) and causing fumes to explode (forklift and truck motors). A fire isn't exploding, unless you put an erosol spray can into it...Current motors burn the fuel. You can cause an explosion with a small amount of fuel. To burn, you need considerably mor. The whole point of the system is to change it from a burning process to an explosion process.

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and isobutain are organic hydrocarbons known as alkanes. They are not created from crude oil, but together with a complex mixture of alkenes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic compounds form crude oil. Crude oil in turn is used to produce Gasoline, Kerosene, heating and lubricating oils. You can take the products above, and cause them to react to other particles to get back to the basic structures, which is what a supercarbureted system does. Gasoline, which can have anywhere between 6-12 carbon atoms in it, will react to evaporated water when evaporated to produce methanol, CH3OH. With the gasoline molecule defficient by 1 Carbon molecule and 2 Hydrogen molecules, it will further break down to a given amount of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), and propane (C3H8). Methane, ethane, and propane combine to form a natural gas. The best way to describe it is that it is like taking back all the energy that was used in the process to make the gasoline in the first place.

The fine mist a fuel injector is supposed to put out isn't very fine. It is more like a stream. A fine mist would only be injected about 1-2 feet at 35psi. A not so fine of a mist is sprayed up to four feet.
A brand new fuel injector sprays the gasoline at least 5 feet. You can test that yourself easily enough. The fuel isn't being misted into the cylinders, it is being sprayed.

Here is proof of the lead additive in a gasoline. Notice how it is worded:

"The octane rating of hydrocarbons can be improved by the addition of small quantities of compounds called "antiknocking agents". Among the most widely udes antiknocking agents are the following;
CH3
|
CH2 CH3
| |
CH3-CH2-Pb-CH2-CH3 CH3-Pb-CH3
| |
CH2 CH3
|
CH3
tetraethyllead tetramethyllead
...The catylitic converters with which late-model automobiles are equipped can be "poisoned" by lead...To minimize knocking, unleaded gasolines contain methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline." (Raymond Chang, seventh edition chemistry)

It has the same effect as the lead does. Hmmm. I wonder why it's there. Surely not to minimize knocking in an unleaded motor? Only diesel "knocks."
A though about diesel motors. The diesel is not ignited by a spark. The heat comes from being compressed. It produces all the heat heat needed to ignite simply by compressing. Unleaded engines compress the gas considarably...Electric energy does not eaqual heat energy. A diesel should have better gas mileage, better torque, and less emmisions than a standard unleaded motor. Proof? The Duramax diesel by GM. NO unleaded V8 comes close to it in all three respects.

I'v never seen so many contradictions in my life.

I get 'knock' in my gasoline engine if i advance my ignition to far or put in a lower grade gas than suggested by the engine manufacturer.

Today all engines run on unleaded gasoline...diesel never had lead added to it(if you get confused later).

Leaded gas helps improve engien wear and knock properties of gasoline but this lead was an environmental hazard and so was removed from gasoline, substitutions for the anti-knocking lead agent where created, this newer anti-kncoking agent don't contain lead if they did it would have been a moot point in removing lead from the gas in the first place.

Anyways compairing a firecracker to crude oil fuels dosen't makes sence... solid propelent to liquid propelent all depends on how its used. cut open that fire cracker take the powder make it a long length and light it... the burn rate will be alot slower.

In vietnam they took C4 and made thin flat wafers out of the C4 to cook there food because the C4 burned slow enough although burned extremely hot.

I'm really tired of argueing with you. My dad is a Nuclear Physicist at Thomas Jefferson National accelerator facility. I showed him this thread and he started laughing at all your comments...
A percussion explosion, by that, you mean striking something. The REASON the first wave in a nuclear explosion hits so hard, its neutrons trying to get out of the way. Basically, they're taking a metal (plutonium) and expanding it to hundreds of thousands of times its volume extremely quickly. The first wave is ALSO heat. You're getting all your facts mixed up. You're talking about dis-associating hydrogen and oxygen molecules, the process which takes an enormous emount of energy. Way to much energy to be produced by that little amount of gasoline. Several thousand degrees of heat. You're saying theres no heat in a percussion explosion?

The rapid expansion frost burned his hand. It also pulls energy from the air around it. Hence the reason of pre-evaporating the gasoline. It gets all the energy it needs from the air. All that is left for it to do is be exposed to a spark, such as static electricity, which I can guarentee doesn't "run" anywhere near 500 degrees celcius. if it did, then we would be in trouble...
The energy is in relation to volumetric. If one litre of liquid gasoline = 700litres of gaseous gasoline, THERE IS STILL THE SAME ENERGY, ENERGY IS NEITHER GAINED NOR DESTROYED, JUST TRANSFERED.


Igniting liquid Gasoline requires that residual heat. It not just helps, it makes the ignition possible. You're saying that you CAN'T start a car cold, $(#$ off.

Now you're saying is make it H30? H20 IS ALREADY BALANCED, ITS NEUTRAL. Hydrogen, with an outer electron valence of 1, and Oxygen, with an outer valence of 6. 8 outer is balanced. It WON'T bond with any free floating hydrogen.

The reason your hand gets hurt more if you try to hold the firework, YOU'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THE ENERGY. If you lay your hand flat, the air surrounding it more readily absorbs the energy.

The oil you use doesn't come in a yellow container(PENZOIL)? Wow, I guess I should start buying ones that come in blue or silver containers because that makes all the difference.

Heat is mechanical energy you dipshit.

Im tired of posting against you.

Then I realize this kid advertises:
A/C
REAL chrome trim
in his sig. Wow, an '86 buick lasabre... WITH A/C?! OMG OMG OMG OMG

Don't forget this kid is the mechanic of KU

Oh and it sounds like the duramax got beat by your 455 or whatever v8 with 86 miles to the gallon.

We know that diesels can do wonders for the trucking industry.
And we know they don't use spark plugs, but they are running on compression ratios of like 20:1 plus how many pounds of boost, injection pressures can take off your hand. Thats why they are slighly more efficient than gasoline engines.
Now disconnect all your spark plug wires on any spark ignition engine and see what happens.
Also you started off saying that lead was used to prevent the formation of propane or something and know you're saying it was used to reduce knock. And i still don't see the word lead in methyl-tertiery-butyl-ether. There is no lead in pump gas.
And you still don't get it,
In normal combustion we don't produce propane or methane or methanol or whatever you're stuck on, Gasoline and air go in, and mostly the 5 gases come out, Oxygen, CO, HC, CO2, NOx, and add in a little water, you know the stuff that doesn't get burned in you're engine.
The supercarburetor doesn't work and we don't want an explosion in our engines.

In your first post you were asking questions about does anybody know about the supercarburetor and how does it work? Can an engine operate at 100% efficiency and get 200mpg? Your being retarded and now your trying to come off as Gods pupil of the combustion process. Your retarded and your trying to put apply certain models of chemistry that don't work in this application.


YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE

He just has a misconception on the chemistry and hes completely avoid the thermal dynamics of the situation.

Let's all at least get on the same page here. Combustion is combustion. Its the combining of a fuel with oxygen. This reaction gives off heat. There is no known combustion process that does not make heat. The properties of combustion make them appear to be different, but they are all the same critter. There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion. Paper burns slowly. Nitrogycerin burns quickly. End of story.

Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy. Buickmastermind; let's use some hypothetical numbers and make an example. We know that (when combustion happens, 100% of the chemical energy is used. Let's say in an engine, from the combustion, 20% makes its way to mechanical energy, 60% makes it to heat, and the remaining 20% is sound, light, and other energy, including that which remains potential in chemical energy. If we could bend the rules of physics and reduce that heat that is produced to, say, 40%, the 20% we've conserved DOES NOT show up as mechanical or other forms of energy. It simply skews the graph downward. What we CAN do is to actively remove the heat. NOT make the engine cooler, mind you. Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity. This is done with playing with surface areas, alloy mixes, and dynamics of the cooling system to play with how much heat gets removed and how much stays there.

The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... period. Its expressed most commonly as Delta H and is a fixed number for a given set of parameters. That heat given off during combustion is not the enemy, its just a cold hard fact of combustion. The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat. Its tought to describe, but you're not adding heat, but the temperature goes up... Adiabatically.. for the same and opposite reason that propane is cold coming out of the tank.

Assuming you've given enough activation energy to the mixture, it will ignite. If it gives off 100% of its chemical energy to other forms, (according to our example) 20% is mechanical, 60% is heat, and 20% is other junk. That is not negotiable as far as the chemical equation is concerned. Its fixed, mathematical fact based on its surrounding properties. You can change those properties by changing their surroundings, like compression ratio, cooling efficiency, etc, but not remove heat entirely or in any appreciable amount.

Lets take a look at Boyle's gas laws condensed into his formula, PV=nrT, or as I like to call it, "the pervert rule." P is pressure, V is volume, n is a chemical number derived from the atomic weight(s) of the stuff in question, r is a gas constant and T is temperature in Kelvin.

All things equal, things are fine. But, if T is reduced by half, either P or V must be reduced by half as well. This is demonstrated in your car tires in the cold; they lose both pressure and volume. If that makes sense, we'll move on. Since heat is constantly being absorbed by the coolant, T is dropping rapidly after combustion. Therefore, P is dropping at the same rate. I know this will shock you, but T is our friend. Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones. (all other things equal) The aluminum absorbs heat faster and typically require more compression ratio to make the same power. The benefits of increased compression are notable in airflow, efficiency, and therefore power production.

To narrow it all down, take another look at PV=nrT. Let's assume a fixed volume since that is set by the piston's position. If you explode gas/air in a fixed volume, its obvious that the pressure will increase. This is mostly a product of the explosion itself; you've taken a large dense molecule, split it up into a bunch of light gasses and it takes up more space. This is the mechanical part. You've also introduced a huge amount of heat, and therefore T. Increasing T increases P as well, so this added pressure is more energy available to push on the piston. T is a good thing!

I realize your rationale, but its just incorrect in this case. The combustion of things creates heat, period. There is no way of getting around it, and in fact in engines today, we use it to make power. But, removing heat does not increase efficiency.

In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion.

The inefficency of engines is due to hundreds of factors, including limitations on how gasoline burns, friction in the engine, and simply the overcoming of inertia with reciprocating pistons is incredible.

The analogies used earlier about firecrackers and bombs are somewhat valid, but still, they are all just combustion. Its just that the energies they produce are widely varying. The explosion of gunpowder makes largely mechanical energy but not much heat or light. The explosion of H2 and O2 makes incredibly violent mechanical explosions with a high amount of heat and almost no light. So as you can see by our previous example, if gasoline makes 20/60/20, gunpoweder might be more like 60/20/20 and H2O might be 40/50/10. Those aren't chemical terms, they're curtis-isms. :)

The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical.

There is a difference between burning a gas (the propane stove) and causing fumes to explode (forklift and truck motors). A fire isn't exploding, unless you put an erosol spray can into it...Current motors burn the fuel. You can cause an explosion with a small amount of fuel. To burn, you need considerably mor. The whole point of the system is to change it from a burning process to an explosion process.

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and isobutain are organic hydrocarbons known as alkanes. They are not created from crude oil, but together with a complex mixture of alkenes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic compounds form crude oil. Crude oil in turn is used to produce Gasoline, Kerosene, heating and lubricating oils. You can take the products above, and cause them to react to other particles to get back to the basic structures, which is what a supercarbureted system does. Gasoline, which can have anywhere between 6-12 carbon atoms in it, will react to evaporated water when evaporated to produce methanol, CH3OH. With the gasoline molecule defficient by 1 Carbon molecule and 2 Hydrogen molecules, it will further break down to a given amount of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), and propane (C3H8). Methane, ethane, and propane combine to form a natural gas. The best way to describe it is that it is like taking back all the energy that was used in the process to make the gasoline in the first place.

The fine mist a fuel injector is supposed to put out isn't very fine. It is more like a stream. A fine mist would only be injected about 1-2 feet at 35psi. A not so fine of a mist is sprayed up to four feet.
A brand new fuel injector sprays the gasoline at least 5 feet. You can test that yourself easily enough. The fuel isn't being misted into the cylinders, it is being sprayed.

Here is proof of the lead additive in a gasoline. Notice how it is worded:

"The octane rating of hydrocarbons can be improved by the addition of small quantities of compounds called "antiknocking agents". Among the most widely udes antiknocking agents are the following;
CH3
|
CH2 CH3
| |
CH3-CH2-Pb-CH2-CH3 CH3-Pb-CH3
| |
CH2 CH3
|
CH3
tetraethyllead tetramethyllead
...The catylitic converters with which late-model automobiles are equipped can be "poisoned" by lead...To minimize knocking, unleaded gasolines contain methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline." (Raymond Chang, seventh edition chemistry)

It has the same effect as the lead does. Hmmm. I wonder why it's there. Surely not to minimize knocking in an unleaded motor? Only diesel "knocks."
A though about diesel motors. The diesel is not ignited by a spark. The heat comes from being compressed. It produces all the heat heat needed to ignite simply by compressing. Unleaded engines compress the gas considarably...Electric energy does not eaqual heat energy. A diesel should have better gas mileage, better torque, and less emmisions than a standard unleaded motor. Proof? The Duramax diesel by GM. NO unleaded V8 comes close to it in all three respects.

WOW...we all got learned agian by Curtis73...while i sit hear quietly giggleing at buick. bjdm151 has a great point. buick asked a question and when we gave him answears (even prople with 4+ year college degrees related to his question) he bashes us with his vastly "superior" false knowlege. so we prove him wrong once agian.

Now as for you statements buick
-Burning and "exploding" are 2 different things? lets take "explode" and brake it down...oh yes EX-... as in EXpansion or EXothermic. Ex- means out. when you burn LP gas on a stove it EXpands. when you combust LP gas in a controlled environment (cylender) it EXpands. all burning is is an exothermic reaction that happens when a fule oxidieses. pretty much everything will burn. at which tempature this happens depends on chemical properties. things such as water will brake down into hydrogen and oxygen before burning. but the tempatures requited to make H2O split are so much higher than tempatures in an internam combustion engine. that is why in order to split H2O you use electrolicis. Hydrogen has a 1- charge and oxygen has a 2+ (meanin in order for either one to have a Noble Gas configuration H has to loose 1 electron and oxygen has to gain 2. note: why water is so stable. 2 hydrogen loose their valence electrons and 1 oxygen gains 2 valence eletrons...but you should have learned that in 7th grade in the chemistry section). anyway, anything will burn and oxydies. iron will burn. iron will "burn" if it is placed in pure oxygen. it is a very violent reaction. so whether you are burning propane or combusting it, the propane is burning.

- :lol2: what is funny is that you claim propane cant be made from crude oil but it can be made from gasoline...funny thing is that gasoline comes from crude oil... crude oil can be refined into any hydrocarbon you can think of. though it isnt practical it can be done.

-injectors are made to be able to deliver the right ammount of fule wiht maximum atomization. now sure a 1800CC injector may shoot a stream at 35psi but a 120cc injector in your average small engine automobile wont spray 5 foot lead alone handle 35psi very well. and once agian yo udidnt read my post because i did say that they are sprayed onto the back of the intake vualve...which turns them into fumes quick enough...ther is very very little (if any at all) liquid gasoline entering a cylender. and tempatures ride enough in compression stroke to make it atomize most of hte way also.

-your 7th edition chemistry book is probably 30 years old and the company is now on the 14th edition or so.... LEAD IS NOT USED. and you dont write out your compounds very well either...

-wow you read how stuff works enough to understand "how diesels work" oh, but wait, diesels dont knock either. since after all it isnt "pre ignition." it is just regular ignition...the fule isnt injected utnill the air tempatures are high enough to burn the fule. and diesel isnt rated in octane (octane=resistance to ignite). it is rated in how readily it is willing to burn. oh and how about al ittle quiz...oh oh i know, what did rudolf diesel originally deisgn his engine for and what fule was it originally designed to run off of (hint: McDonalds). now your ideas that electrical energy is not related to mechanical or thermal energy. well let me just put it this way. 1watt of electricity is equal to 1joule of energy per seconds. a joule can be related to all things energy. eletromagnetic, thermal, kenetic, electric, potential, you name it it can be rated in joules. and its funny that you say that diesles have better emmisions....a diesel will have better emmisions if it is running "lean" at a low RPM....but if it begines to run "rich" (or not all the fule is being burned) it has horible emmisions. i wonder why my brand new '05 C-6 doesnt belch black smoke but Semi- rigs do....oh thats right the C-6 is more effeciently burning its fule. :banghead:

Sorry about the length of this post, but I had to quote you on a few different things a few different times.

CBFryman, do you even know how to spell?

"Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy."
How does a car turn heat energy into mechanical energy? I see no boilers under the hood, only a block of drilled steel that changes chemical energy into 80% heat energy and 20% mechanical energy! Tell me, what device under the hood of a car, or anywhere in the car for that matter, changes heat energy into mechanical energy?

"There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion"

Burning:v. burned, or burnt (bûrnt) burn·ing, burns
v. tr.
To cause to undergo combustion.
To destroy with fire: burned the trash; burn a house down.
To consume (fuel or energy, for example): burned all the wood that winter.
Physics. To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.
To damage or injure by fire, heat, radiation, electricity, or a caustic agent: burned the toast; burned my skin with the acid.

Exploding:v. ex·plod·ed, ex·plod·ing, ex·plodes
v. intr.
To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.
To shatter with a loud noise: The vase exploded into tiny pieces when it hit the floor.
To make an emotional outburst: My neighbor exploded in rage at the trespassers.
To increase suddenly, sharply, and without control: The population level in this area has exploded during the past 12 years.
To change state or appearance suddenly: Over the weekend the trees exploded with color

Wow. Explosions are the same thing as burning. NOT.

"Leaded gas helps improve engien wear and knock properties of gasoline but this lead was an environmental hazard and so was removed from gasoline,"
Lead improves engine wear. ??? Lead was supposedly used to "prevent" engine wear, not increase it! Why use lead at all if it wears a motor down faster?

"Nitrogycerin burns quickly"
Never heard of "nitrogycerin", and I have yet to see proof that NitrogLycerin burns. It explodes.

"Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity"
Wait a second here. Removing heat from an object makes it hotter? So much for the laws of conservation of energy that you speak so highly of.

"The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... "
True, which is why mixing the gasoline with water is done, so you can produce Methanol and natural gasses. Natural gasses: gasses found in nature. The explosion of these gasses gives off way, way, way less heat.

"The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat."
How do you increase the temperature without raising heat? This is one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

"Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones"
Hey, World, let's all put iron heads on our motors so we can get more power! So, the faster I absorb heat, the more power I create...Yet again, one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

"you've taken a large dense molecule, split it up into a bunch of light gasses and it takes up more space. "
I think your finally starting to understand it...

"You've also introduced a huge amount of heat, and therefore T. Increasing T increases P as well, so this added pressure is more energy available to push on the piston. T is a good thing!"
Never mind, you lost it...again.

"There is no way of getting around it, and in fact in engines today, we use it to make power. But, removing heat does not increase efficiency. "
And again...If you don't create the huge amount of extra heat (which requires energy, not supplies it) in the first place, you don't have to dissipate it in the radiator! Wow. Science at work.

"In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion."
This equation you're talking about is referring to applications that have the primary purpose of turning one form of energy into heat energy. If a motors primary purpose is to create heat, how did Ford discover that a motor can propel something? Accident? The motor was created to produce mechanical energy.

"The analogies used earlier about firecrackers and bombs are somewhat valid, but still, they are all just combustion. Its just that the energies they produce are widely varying. The explosion of gunpowder makes largely mechanical energy but not much heat or light. The explosion of H2 and O2 makes incredibly violent mechanical explosions with a high amount of heat and almost no light. So as you can see by our previous example, if gasoline makes 20/60/20, gunpoweder might be more like 60/20/20 and H2O might be 40/50/10. Those aren't chemical terms, they're curtis-isms."
...Read the definitions again...

"The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical."
Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

"Now as for you statements buick
-Burning and "exploding" are 2 different things? lets take "explode" and brake it down...oh yes EX-... as in EXpansion or EXothermic. Ex- means out. when you burn LP gas on a stove it EXpands. when you combust LP gas in a controlled environment (cylender) it EXpands. all burning is is an exothermic reaction that happens when a fule oxidieses. pretty much everything will burn. at which tempature this happens depends on chemical properties. things such as water will brake down into hydrogen and oxygen before burning. but the tempatures requited to make H2O split are so much higher than tempatures in an internam combustion engine. that is why in order to split H2O you use electrolicis. Hydrogen has a 1- charge and oxygen has a 2+ (meanin in order for either one to have a Noble Gas configuration H has to loose 1 electron and oxygen has to gain 2. note: why water is so stable. 2 hydrogen loose their valence electrons and 1 oxygen gains 2 valence eletrons...but you should have learned that in 7th grade in the chemistry section). anyway, anything will burn and oxydies. iron will burn. iron will "burn" if it is placed in pure oxygen. it is a very violent reaction. so whether you are burning propane or combusting it, the propane is burning."
You start off by saying that exploding is exothermic, and is the same thing as burning. You end by saying that combustion and buring are the same thing. Combustion is NOT an explosion.

"funny thing is that gasoline comes from crude oil... crude oil can be refined into any hydrocarbon you can think of. though it isnt practical it can be done."
I think you may have something here. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. You just said that it is not practical to produce hydrocarbons. That is what gasoline is. That is why we break the gasoline molecule down, to get at the more practical gasses.

"injectors are made to be able to deliver the right ammount of fule wiht maximum atomization. now sure a 1800CC injector may shoot a stream at 35psi but a 120cc injector in your average small engine automobile wont spray 5 foot lead alone handle 35psi very well."
So, you are saying that the injector on the 2.2l v4 used in the Chevy Cavalier, which happens to be the SAME injector used in both the 3.4l v6 and the 5.2l v8, shoots less gasoline into the motor than the injector on a larger motor?! I think not. The injector is calibrated to shoot the correct amount of fuel in a stream, so it lands in one place and cannot evaporate quickly enough. The only way to get the liquid to go into the cylinder is to aim it directly at the back of the valve opening. Some of the gas vaporizes, yes, but there are no evaporated water molecues there at that point to react with them, and the supercarburated process can occur normally.

"your 7th edition chemistry book is probably 30 years old and the company is now on the 14th edition or so...."
Actually, a book that is copywrited in 2002 is not thirty years old. The first edition was published in 1981. Updating to the xth edition doesn't change the scientific fact behind it. If you had read the entire quote that i used, you wouldn't be saying that I am saying that they still use lead. They use, and I once again quote, "methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline" It has the same effect as lead, but it isn't poisonous. It is lead-based not in the sense that it is built around a lead atom, but its purpose is meant to duplicate the leads function in the gasoline. That function is to react with water vapors so that the water vapors cannot react to the gasoline.

"now your ideas that electrical energy is not related to mechanical or thermal energy." "1watt of electricity is equal to 1joule of energy per seconds"
FYI. Heat is measured in joules, not joules per second. They are not directly related, and therefore cannot be equal.

"In your first post you were asking questions about does anybody know about the supercarburetor and how does it work? Can an engine operate at 100% efficiency and get 200mpg? Your being retarded and now your trying to come off as Gods pupil of the combustion process. Your retarded and your trying to put apply certain models of chemistry that don't work in this application."
I am not being retarded. If a motor ran @ 100% efficeincy, I would be getting 233 mpg. Running at about 89% efficeincy is what produces the 200 mpg estimate. So, chemistry only applies in a chemistry laboratory? And you were calling me a moron...

"Also you started off saying that lead was used to prevent the formation of propane or something and know you're saying it was used to reduce knock"
I said it prevents the formation of natural gasses, but politics, the major roll in the prevention of the supercarburater, says that lead is used as a knock reduceant. *Evil Result said that lead enhances engine wear...

"You're saying that you CAN'T start a car cold, $(#$ off."
Ever heard of the terms open and closed loop operations? If you are Canadian, then you can say no. If you work on cars, you had better know what they are. Why do you think the motor idles higher at start-up? To create more heat faster, twit.

Ask the resident double chem major why vaporized H2O reacts with the other three atoms to form CH3OH. Not me.

"The reason your hand gets hurt more if you try to hold the firework, YOU'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THE ENERGY. If you lay your hand flat, the air surrounding it more readily absorbs the energy."
Exactly my point about explosions.

"Heat is mechanical energy you dipshit.

Im tired of posting against you."

Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science"...seeing as how you're tired of posting against me, yet continue to do so...

"Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy."
How does a car turn heat energy into mechanical energy? I see no boilers under the hood, only a block of drilled steel that changes chemical energy into 80% heat energy and 20% mechanical energy! Tell me, what device under the hood of a car, or anywhere in the car for that matter, changes heat energy into mechanical energy?


Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science"...seeing as how you're tired of posting against me, yet continue to do so...

shit even i can answer that. remember what heat basicly is how fast the parts of an atom move(at O K they are at a dead stop) during combustion, the burning produces heat. or in other words, the atoms jump around more then a gerbil on speed. as the atoms speed up, they push away from each other. hence expansion of the the gases in the combustion chamber. the expanding gas push the cylinder down on the power stroke. how did you think a engine produces power?

"The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical."
Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

hehehe if water vapors can ignite why do firemen spray water in the air to a fire? and why don't swimming pools and water park have no smoking signs required?

anyway they use water injection so they can run lower octane on higher compression engines. it is detonation control not a power increaser. read:
http://home.att.net/~alkycontrol/page8.htm

A motors specific purpose is to create mechanical energy, not heat energy. That is what I have been trying to say. Eliminate as much excess heat as possible to increase the efficiency of the motor. In our current motors, we burn gas. Heat from the spark plug is used to create mechanical energy. My point is that almost all of the heat energy that burning fuel creates is useless! Any energy that is needed to burn the fuel is supplied by the spark plug. That is why water vapors, which react to gas vapors, need to be supplied to produce the natural gasses and methanol. That is also a secondary purpose of water vapor in racing engines.

"There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion"

Wow. Explosions are the same thing as burning. NOT.

Explosions take place because of combustion. In social terms (the ones found in dictionaries) Explosion is a more descriptive word for combustion. If you follow the dictionary's description you could say that intercourse and sex are different things. The dictionary here is talking about exploding trees. The bottom line is that explosions come about by combustion. Explosion is a term we use to describe violent combustion.

"Nitrogycerin burns quickly"
Never heard of "nitrogycerin", and I have yet to see proof that NitrogLycerin burns. It explodes.

My sincerest apologies that in a twelve paragraph respectful response I missed a single letter. The fact of the matter is, nitrogLycerin combusts. If you wish to argue scientific fact, please provide your proof in the space provided below. If you have proof that the NitrogLycerin molecule reacts with oxygen in a different way than paper, please enlighten us all.

"Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity"
Wait a second here. Removing heat from an object makes it hotter? So much for the laws of conservation of energy that you speak so highly of.

No, removing heat from the combustion places it somewhere else. Heat happens. If you remove it from combustion, it has to be somewhere else. If you remove it from the "explosion", where does it go? Into the fourth dimension? NO. It goes into the coolant. Hence why you haven't understood a word I've said. It is a chemical fact that heat exists. In one of my earlier posts, I said the HEAT and TEMPERATURE were two different things. Let my try ONE MORE TIME to explain this to you like a child. If you have a cylinder of air at STP (that's standard temperature and pressure) and you compress it by half of its volume, the temperature goes up. Remember PV=nrT and the Adiabatic model we used? Did you add temperature? NO, you added NOTHING. You compressed the heat that you had into a smaller area, increasing its temperature. Its the same reason that any aerosol can feels cold when its contents are dispelled. Adiabatic cooling and heating. You have to think of heat as a PIECE of energy, not like a hot summer day.

Don't try to think of heat as temperature. Temperature is the net result of heat in minus heat out, or Delta +H minus Delta -H. If the engine gives the coolant 200 joules of heat and the cooling system is capble of removing 180 joules, the system will slowly increase in temperature regardless of the fact that its not giving it any more heat.

Even more remedial terms....... Imagine HEAT as a hot rock in a room. There is a fixed amount of HEAT. It gives its heat to the air in the room. All things left alone, you will have a certain temperature in the room based on the heat that is in the rock. Now shrink the room to half its size. You haven't changed the amount of HEAT in the room, but its a higher temperature. If you had taken chemistry you would have been taught these terms.

... And one more try. Let's say you have a bucket with a hole in the bottom that is capable of leaking 10 gallons per minute. (gpm). If you add 10 gpm to the bucket, it stays at the same level. If you add more, it overflows. If you add less it drains. Heat and temperature works the same way. Heat is the water you add. Temperature is the amount of water in the bucket. Add HEAT faster than it can release it and the TEMPERATURE rises.

"The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... "
True, which is why mixing the gasoline with water is done, so you can produce Methanol and natural gasses. Natural gasses: gasses found in nature. The explosion of these gasses gives off way, way, way less heat.

If you still think that mixing water (an inert compound) combines with gasoline to make "natural" gasses, then this argument is finished. Water mixes with NOTHING in the engine, except maybe the iron to make Fe2O3. Before you argue this again, consider this. Regardless of what you put in, you get the same thing out. If you put carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen into the equation, you get C, H, and O, OUT of the equation. Also, if you think Methanol with 12,755 BTUs gives off less energy than gasoline with 11,875 BTUs you are sorely mistaken. You also seem to think that gasoline is less "natural" than natural gas. They are all hydrocarbons and produce heat and other shit. Just because its natural doesn't make it clean. When the Exxon tanker Valdez ran aground and dumped all of its crude oil (the most natural form of hydocarbon possible, fresh out of the ground) did the animals play in it and thank heaven that was given the Black Manna of life? Nature also makes Pit Vipers and Scorpions.

"The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat."
How do you increase the temperature without raising heat? This is one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

I refuse to enter this battle again. See above. If you can't distinguish between heat and temperature from my extensive explanations, then you are just not going to get it. If you add 200 joules of heat to the air in your room, it may increase temperature a couple degrees. If you add 200 joules of heat to an aluminum can, it would melt. The can's TEMPERATURE would be much higher despite the fact that you added the same amount of HEAT. You don't "raise" heat, you can add or subrtract it. Heat makes temperature, not the other way around. This "uneducated mind" has completed four undergraduate degrees, two of which are in Chemistry and Biochemistry, eight years of University tenure, and twenty years experience in automotive repair and customization. If you want to seriously go up against my "uneducated mind" you better come at me with something other than your inability to discern between a form of energy energy and the way it is measured. You increase temperature without adding heat about 2000 times per minute on the highway inside your engine.

"Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones"
Hey, World, let's all put iron heads on our motors so we can get more power! So, the faster I absorb heat, the more power I create...Yet again, one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

I dare you to post your findings at www.eng-tips.com . This is an engineering forum comprised of the greatest minds in metallurgy, engineering, automotive design, and developmental theory. It is a proven mathematical, thermological, and physical fact that, all things equal, an aluminum headed engine makes less power than an iron headed engine. The reason aluminum is desirable is that you can raise compression without pre-ignition problems and reap the benefits of higher compression... like I said in the last post... to take advantage of the Delta +H, airflow, and efficiency that higher compression affords. I have some iron headed engines in my stable, and some aluminum. They serve different purposes. If you say I have an uneducated mind again, I'll personally track you down and smash your face in.

And again...If you don't create the huge amount of extra heat (which requires energy, not supplies it) in the first place, you don't have to dissipate it in the radiator! Wow. Science at work.

So what are you saying? making heat REQUIRES energy???? Combustion provides the heat in this equation. And again, if you had read my post instead of argumentatively skimming it, you would see that combustion creates heat. You can't get around it. Not unless you're God and I doubt that. Combustion makes heat. It doesn't matter how you get rid of it, its there.

"In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion."
This equation you're talking about is referring to applications that have the primary purpose of turning one form of energy into heat energy. If a motors primary purpose is to create heat, how did Ford discover that a motor can propel something? Accident? The motor was created to produce mechanical energy.

NO NO NO. This equation I'm talking about is a chemical mathematical FACT. Its not something that changes with application. We chose gasoline for its combustion properties in engines. We chose CNG for its properties in home heating and cooking. We chose paper to light our campfires because of its properties..... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. We CAN'T change the properties of how gasoline burns by just cooling it down with water. Ford didn't discover shit. He took some designs by several other builders of IC engines and put them in his vehicles. Learn your automotive history.

Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

Holy s#!t. If you think that water vapor BURNS in an engine then you are nothing short of delusional. You also have obviously never taken a single chemistry class, or you would know the difference between a chemical reaction and a physical one. I'm only going to say this one more time... water offers no chemical reaction to the air/fuel mixture being drawn into the engine. It is INERT, which means non-reactive in the parameters of the engine dynamics.

Combustion is NOT an explosion.

So you're saying in combustion, things combine with oxygen, but in an explosion they aren't??? Throwing a match in a bucket of gasoline and the resultant flame is combustion. Igniting vaporized gasoline and air is an explosion. Are they different? I think not. They are both combining a fuel with oxygen.

Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. You just said that it is not practical to produce hydrocarbons. That is what gasoline is. That is why we break the gasoline molecule down, to get at the more practical gasses.

Even if your fantasy existed, it doesn't matter how you break it down, you still have the same stuff in the combustion chamber. If you offer H, C, and O to the equation, you get H, C, and O out of the equation. You can't magically make atoms and molecules disappear during combustion. If you offer H2O along with H, C, and O, after combustion you get H2O, H, C, and O. Its not rocket science. What goes in must come out.

So, you are saying that the injector on the 2.2l v4 used in the Chevy Cavalier, which happens to be the SAME injector used in both the 3.4l v6 and the 5.2l v8, shoots less gasoline into the motor than the injector on a larger motor?! I think not.

Actually, yes. First of all, I think you mean 5.3L, and second, you fail to take into consideration fuel pressure and pulsewidth. Secondly, although they could be, they are NOT the same injector. Same case, different pintle and valve. Don't have the g/l numbers with me, but they flow more on the 3.4.

The injector is calibrated to shoot the correct amount of fuel in a stream, so it lands in one place and cannot evaporate quickly enough. The only way to get the liquid to go into the cylinder is to aim it directly at the back of the valve opening. Some of the gas vaporizes, yes, but there are no evaporated water molecues there at that point to react with them, and the supercarburated process can occur normally.

Good lord we're stretching here. First of all, the injector never fires a stream. It fires an incredibly fine mist which does a much better job of atomizing than a carburetor ever could. Saying that the evaporated water reacts with it is just... well, idiotic.

Actually, a book that is copywrited in 2002 is not thirty years old. The first edition was published in 1981. Updating to the xth edition doesn't change the scientific fact behind it.

uhh... actually it does. In 1981 we still taught the two-kingdom Biological paradigm. In fact since 1985 we've gone to the FIVE-kingdom system. Scientific frontiers are advancing daily. I also happen to know that your chemical evidence would not be found in your book. I took Chemistry in 1981 and it wasn't that way then.

It is lead-based not in the sense that it is built around a lead atom, but its purpose is meant to duplicate the leads function in the gasoline. That function is to react with water vapors so that the water vapors cannot react to the gasoline.

Oooh, backpedaling... sexy. Girls like that. Its lead... no wait, its not lead. It reacts with water... no wait, it cannot react to gasoline. Before you post again, please; for the love of all that's holy, read back over your own posts and explain your own inconsistancies.

I am not being retarded. If a motor ran @ 100% efficeincy, I would be getting 233 mpg. Running at about 89% efficeincy is what produces the 200 mpg estimate. So, chemistry only applies in a chemistry laboratory? And you were calling me a moron...

By what paradigm do you assume a 100% efficient motor gets 233 mpg??? Is that in a light car with a conservative driver and a 2.35 final drive ratio, or a heavy car with a racer and a 4.10 final drive? Is that at sea level, or in Colorado? Is that with Gasoline/Ethanol, or just straight gasoline? Is that with moderate or high compression? What cam and how much overlap? Is the transmission automatic or manual? At what efficency is the transmission rated? What size tires? How wide of a tire and what is the inflation pressure? How many people in the car? Mountainous terrain or flat? Dry or Humid? Running the lights or not? What's the amperage rating of the alternator? What is the coefficient of drag? Serpentine belt or v-belt? Overdriven water pump or underdriven? Smog equipment or none? What type of intake; dual plane, single plane, 360, 180, tunnel ram, large runner, short runner, isolated from oil or no? What size of engine? What is the reciprocating weight and its RPM range? What weight of oil and is it controlled with anti-roping agents, a crank scraper, or a windage tray? What oil pressure? What tolerances are you running on the bearings? Roller valvetrain or flat tappet? Torrington thrust bearings or a button? Timing chain or belt? OHV or not? Thermostat temperature? ECU or carb tuning settings? This is but a tiny list of factors that affect MPG.

Ever heard of the terms open and closed loop operations? If you are Canadian, then you can say no. If you work on cars, you had better know what they are. Why do you think the motor idles higher at start-up? To create more heat faster, twit.

No, dipstick. It idles higher at idle because of the richer mixture. Ever hear of fuel puddling and fuel shear? The walls of the intake are colder and tend to condense fuel. This is all but eliminated in EFI since it directs the fuel at a point that it is difficult to puddle. None of my EFI cars have a fast cold idle... and by the way, open and closed loop operation is the same in Canada and US. It has nothing to do with geography (that means where you are on the globe) its about temperature of the test equipment, namely the O2 sensor.... at which point it calibrates injector pulsewidth from the Lamdba values it gets from the O2 sensor. I guess you didn't plan on my knowing more about closed loop than you do. Sorry.

Ask the resident double chem major why vaporized H2O reacts with the other three atoms to form CH3OH. Not me.

You may ask me... IT DOESN'T

Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science..

Heat IS energy. Energy IS work. Work is NOT ALWAYS mechanically expressed. They all dance constantly and we merely harness it in an engine.

Listen, you started with an egregious post (that means "really bad") and I reacted with flames. In hindsight I felt bad about it, thinking that you were just misled and I publicly apologized. You acknowledged with a kind response. I then posted with respect and knowledge to maybe clear the water, which you repaid with animosity and name-calling. So, I guess you win. Let's write a new chemistry and physics textbook in which removing heat doesn't reduce temperature, completely inert compounds randomly react with huge complex hydrocarbons, and water burns when its converted to vapor. We'll be ranked right up there with Ron L. Hubbard. It will be a great comedy for scientists.

I propose the following three options:

1) If you are so certain of your data, post it at www.eng-tips.com and see what the most discerning minds in automotive engineering have to say. Trust me, I monitor those forums, so I'll see it. If you are right on your topics, I'll personally rent a billboard here in L.A. publicly apologizing for my terrible 8-year education.
2) Just come clean now. I understand the forum sociology. I helped design several. Once you start on a path, you have to stick with it or face the humiliation of the public, right? I've actually been there multiple times. There are only a few of us involved in this topic, so why don't we just take a step back and get our tetosterone in check. We're adults, right?
3) Just quit posting this stuff.

How 'bout it guys... want to just agree to disagree? Its obvious we're not going to change buick's mind, so lets just go our separate ways.

I for one am out of it. I've spoken my peace, but I don't like the nasty tone this thread has taken. Wanna meet for a beer? :) I'm buying!

Curtis

I felt as though Buick was trying to convert me to the dark side of chemical theory, through some sort of hypnotic suggestion.

When he said he didn't know how an Otto engine converts heat energy into mechanical energy...i though to myself wow he must be playing with us getting us all pissed off because nobody could be that dumb unless their trying because i'v never heard anybody who could speak normally like Buick state such ridiculous information and try to back it up against educated individuals..... but i'm shure we know Buick dosen't have an education because he dosen't seem to know anything that he talking about.

ok off to school to for my Mechanical Engineering class...

:spit: huh? Hey! im in High School and i understand more of this stuff than buick. Electricity is Measured in Joules per seconds and heat is measuted in joules. so there fore they cant be related? WTF? :wtf: if i apply 200 joules of energy over a period of 1 seconds it equal to 200watts. heat and electricity arent related, lmao. that is why you get a 2000w RMS amplifier and let it run for a little while then put you hand on the heat sink. oh thats right the extra JOULES of energy make it warm. But i agree with curtis73. Buick will never realize is contradictions to his self and modern chemistry and physics. so hey you buy the beer and no one calls the cops and ill drink it :cheers: till i puke that is... :puke:

Oh and what happened to Sabb? he has a few degress, either that or he just knows his stuff...him and myself have had a few arguements untill ive realized that he knows just a tad (ya right, "just a tad" :lol: ) more than myself.

PS
Buick, ya might wanna come to me to get a real stereo installed in that Buick, with A/C. very nice. :screwy: