200 MPG? Cars that run on WATER?

[joe_a_buaiz]

Here are some interesting links.

The Pogue carburetor:

Patent: http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=...y=DACFD63C7A5A

Letters about the Pogue carb: http://byronw.www1host.com/Files/1936%20Ford%20test.pdf


This is another interesting carburetor, that is designed to run any internal combustion engine on WATER, by decomposing the water, through electrolysis, into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen, which are both highly explosive. The interesting part is that no liquid goes inside the engine, only dry hydrogen gas, dry oxygen gas, and atmospheric air. There can be no harmful pollution. http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=...y=699BD6A92B9F

You'll notice that the patent dates on these two carburetors are 1935, and 1932, respectively. There are many, many systems to get upwards of 300 miles per gallon, run cars on water, sealed reciprocating motors, almost perpetual motion, and all that sort of seemingly impossible thing. Oddly enough, none of them are in use today, and, even stranger, it seems all of the inventors are dead, or are unusually well off for no apparent reason, and adamantly refuse to discuss their inventions. Charles Pogue, the inventor of the 200 MPG carb, went from a nearly broke inventor trying to sell his carburetors, to a wealthy filter factory owner who refused to ever speak of his invention, within a week. I very strongly suspect that he was bought out by an oil company, and then threatened to make sure he would not talk about it.

To read more visit this link: http://byronw.www1host.com/

I am planning to build a Pogue carb, and install it on my own car, to see how it works out. I recommend that you read the patent. That's the sort of thing, that enthralls me.

If you have any technical information, plans, measurements, schematics, or any of that sort of thing for the Pogue carb, drop me a line.

---Joe

Update:
Let me throw this patent in, too. It is another fuel supply gadget, for car engines, that turns water into usable fuel. I've only just found it, and haven't yet read through the description, so I don't know whether it can technically be called a carburetor. Here's the link: http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=...y=41FDEF1E613C

[TheSilentChamber]

GM is perfecting the water powered motor as we speak. The brutal truth is that nothing of any nature like that will hit the market anytime soon. In my life time.. yeah probably, but I wont hold my breath. Why? Oil companies are major part of this countrys jobs, income, and economy. While gas prices do rise, there is still at this point no major concern to radically switch to any other fuel source. Alot of stuff also looks good on paper, but comes into major flaws when you start to accually put it together- while alot of it may work, most is never good as it seems. There are also other things to think about besides mpg, such as safty, reliability, cost, maintanace, ext. Good luck building your stuff, take pictures and post progress- most of us here would love to see it.

[joe_a_buaiz]

It seems that the oil companies have a choke-hold on almost everything. A friend of mine was working on the water powered engine in the late 70s (he thought that he was the first to think of it), and he told me that his life was threatened. He was going about his experiments quite publicly, on radio shows, local news, and all that sort of thing. He told me that someone in a suit and tie, with big sunglasses (Secret Service type garb), told him that if he continued with his experiments, he would "be wearing cement boots."

America does need to free itself of its dependency on foreign oil. That's for damn sure. It would do the ecomony quite a lot of good, actually.

I haven't got anything to report on the carb-building front. I'm somewhere in between toying with the idea, and actually planning how I will go about building the thing. I haven't yet even decided what to make it out of. I've decided not to try the water thing just yet, so for now I'm going to concern myself with the Pogue. If you studied the link to the Pogue patent (and I hope that you did), you would have noticed that almost the whole thing can be made of sheet metal. I'd like to use copper, because it's strong, and doesn't rust, but I'm afraid it might corrode over time, and go bad. On the other hand, I could use aluminum, but it is very weak, and is expensive to solder ($100 for a coil of aluminum solder last time I bought some).

I was trying to figure out what kind of mileage I might get with one of these carbs. In the 1936 letters (which I linked to), T.G. Breen wrote: "I made a test today of the Pogue Carburetor installed on a Ford eight-cylinder coupe.... I drove the car 26.2 miles on one pint of gasoline.... The performance of the car was 100% in every way.... It performed equal to, if not better than, any car with a standard carburetor."
26.2 miles per pint = 209.6 miles per gallon.
That's with an early to mid 30s eight cylinder Ford. I drive a 1980 Oldsmobile Omega. Front wheel drive, four cylinder engine, ALUMINUM BUMPERS!!! I'm thinking 350 to 400 MPG. But, of course, I won't know until I try, will I?

I'll post updates as things start to happen, and pictures when I see something cool.

---Joe

[curtis73]

I saw a water engine running from tanks of H2 and O2. A professor of engineering (U of Nebraska I think) came and spoke at a symposium at my university. He had converted a Briggs and Stratton 5 hp motor to run on hydrogen and oxygen. It provided a moderate compression ratio and has good aftermarket support. His main problems were:

1) extreme temps. Where as gasoline combustion typically happens at 1500-1800 degrees F, the compressed hydrogen/oxygen mixture burns at 2300-2600

2) upper cylinder lubrication. Gasoline has some lubrication qualities but water has very little. The constant contact with steam was very effective at washing down the cylinder walls. He designed a different ring package and changed the texture of the cylinder walls to increase oil deposition, but it was at the cost of reduced compression sealing and increased oil contamination/consumption. In fact, his engine burned enough oil that its emissions were almost as high as its gasoline counterpart.

3) Oil contamination. Blowby in hydrocarbon engines comes in the form of hydrocarbons. Mostly miscible in oil and easily burned off or evaporated when the oil gets hot. Blowby in water engines is water. Although it spends little time in the oil, enough of it can cause it to emulsify in the oil and turn it to basically Miracle Whip.

4) That whole conservation of energy thing. Whereas hydrocarbon fuels carry their energy as potential, water carries its energy stored in tight molecular bonds. All it takes to release hydrocarbon's energy is the addition of activation energy. In the case of a gasoline engine, a spark. In the case of a diesel engine, heat from compression. Water must be first separated into hydrogen and oxygen for it to be able to combust. That takes a ton of energy... it takes as much energy or more to split it up as you get back when you combust it. The idea of putting water in your tank, turning a key, and getting water out your tailpipe won't ever happen. The running engine would have to make more energy than its getting from the combustion just to support itself.

5) Speed of combustion. Gasoline and oxygen burning create a certain flame speed (I forget averages... maybe someone will remind me), but hydrogen and oxygen create incredibly fast flame fronts. It ends up being kinda like burning 82 octane in a 14:1 compression race engine. The extreme spikes in cylinder pressures would almost instantly destroy engine components. The demonstration I watched circumvented this by using very delayed ignition timing, and allowing only enough hydrogen and oxygen in to barely support operation. His estimate was that his 5-hp engine was only making about 1 hp and it could only operate at one speed.

If you've never seen the process of electrolysis on water, you should. Hypothetically, if you took two ends of a wire, put them in a glass of water, and plugged the cord into a 120v household outlet (which you can't really do, but for the sake of demonstration...) you would get nice little bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen at about the same speed as an alka seltzer bubbles in a glass. It would make about one litre of hydrogen and about 1/2 litre of oxygen every hour. A 1.5-litre engine needs that much hydrogen/oxygen mixture approximately 12,000 times per hour on the highway. We would have to speed up the process of electrolysis by 12,000 times just to support accleration. Even if we could come up with some external source of providing the energy for electrolysis - like a solar panel capable of generating 1,500,000 volts (about what it would take), why would we waste that energy on splitting up molecules when we could just use the electricity to power the car. Turning water into fuel, then back to water is equivalent to taking exhaust, converting it back to gasoline, then burning it. It just won't happen.

The only real viable option with current or projected technology for an H2O car is if the gas is already in its diatomic state carried in tanks. Then you have to carry tanks of H2 and O2 in your trunk. Not too safe in an accident. But then you're still faced with oil contamination, short engine life from cylinder wall scuffing, extreme heat that requires very large cooling systems, and durability of internal engine parts.

Another very important part is patent law in those days. Patents were easy to get. It was a new process designed to protect inventors in a time when technology was booming, the stock market was a masterful way of cornering market power, and patents only required a submission of plans. It was free advertisement. It was also a time when car manufacturers were anything from the big boys like Ford all the way down to independed coach manufacturers that made wooden-framed horseless carriages in a barn. Getting patents on fantastic inventions was a way of getting attention. In Bedford, PA, for instance there was a coach manufacturer (actually two farmers who put Lipper engines on used carriages) who patented a new steering system. It never made it to a single carriage because it was too hard to operate and failed frequently, but people came from miles around to buy Leighty's carriages because they were a pioneer in steering technology. Ford did similar things with patents.

My guess is that the water carburetor was a market ploy. No physical manipulation available in a carburetor could possibly disassociate hydrogen from oxygen. Basically, what I'm saying is the patent was a hoax designed to get people to buy their cars. You can't put water through a venturi and magically have it split into its component atoms.

[joe_a_buaiz]

If you ever see that professor again, tell him I said:

1. To lower the temperature of combustion, he should introduce atmospheric air into the mixture.

2. If the water is atomised properly, no liquid should be present to get into the cylinders. Unless he's trying to use that gas engine as a steam engine, the water should be completely atomised until it is dry gas before it goes into the cylinder.

3. Again, the water should be completely atomised until it is a dry gas before entering the cylinder.

4. Stephen Horvath devised a low wattage electrical circuit to atomise water... in 1976. See Pat. #3,980,053.

5. Again, to lower the temperature of combustion, he should introduce atmospheric air, into the mixture.

I have seen the process of electrolysis on water; I've done it. I used a version of the apparatus described in Pat. # 1,380,183, dated 1921. You'll notice, if you study this patent, that after the water has been separated into hydyogen gas, and oxygen, they are kept in separate tanks until they have gone into the mixing chamber, where thay are blended together with atmospheric air, to make a suitable fuel for an engine. Again, Stephen Horvath devised a low wattage electrical circuit to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses. See Pat. #3,980,053.

In short, all of the problems that you described are perfectly solveable, by making sure that the water is completely atomised, and the two gasses kept separate until mixed with atmospheric air. Hydrogen and oxygen are both quite explosive, and twentyfold so when mixed as gasses without being diluted with atmospheric air. Believe me; I have a friend who almost killed himself that way.

---Joe

[TheSilentChamber]

Yeah your right, your probably smarter than a professor of engineering anyway.

[joe_a_buaiz]

No, I'm no smarter than anyone else. I just know more.

---Joe

[beef_bourito]

i heard of another way to get hydrogen where you crack hydrocarbons into carbon and hydrogen, this doesn't require as much energy as the combustion process of hydrogen and water provides and therefore you can have an engine making power. it used plasma in some way to crack it. i saw it on daily planet on discovery.

[curtis73]

Well, I won't go into patent law again, and it appears you've done extensive research on it, but I must reiterate that just because there is a patent on it doesn't mean it will work. The chemical truth remains that it takes as much or more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water as you get back from its combustion. That's just elemental proof from the periodic table. I can see the potential for short-distance water cars if you plug them in overnight to electrolyze enough gas for your day, but that helps us very little since 63% of America's electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels.

Please don't think I'm being confrontational, its just that I have four years of a chemistry degree that allows me to see the feasibility and shortcomings or all of these things.

I think the true feasibility of these cars will come from more efficient (and safe) ways of storing the two gases and keeping it stored as a gas in the car instead of trying to make it from water through electrolysis on the fly.

In friendly counterpoint:

1) Introducing atomspehric air to combustion partially nullifies the point of burning stoichiometric H2 and O2 altogether. By introducing atomospheric air to combustion, you expose it to the 78% nitrogen contained in the atmosphere. That combined with high pressures in the chamber will cause NOx to skyrocket. Although not a perceived problem in 1932, it is a problem today that would make it infeasible.

2) It has nothing to do with how the water is atomized... there is no water being introduced into the cylinder at all. Its strictcly H2 and O2. AFTER combustion, its H2O. Some of that H2O (steam or liquid) will make it past the rings and into the oil. The Professor who spoke at our symposium noted that his oil did, in fact, turn to mayonnaise (his words, not mine) after a while of running it. There needs to be a clear distinction here before we go any further; a) electrolysis of water requires as much or more energy to acheive as you get back from its combustion, and b) atomizing water has nothing to do with this quandry.

3) We're not talking about atomizing water into a "dry gas". We're talking about disassociating the hydrogen from the oxygen. It doesn't matter how well you atomize it, its still just little drops of H2O, NOT H2 and O2.

4) You are right; Steven Horvath DID successfully make a patent to ATOMIZE water at low wattages. That has nothing to do with electrolysis. Atomizing water makes little droplets of water, not H and O. There is an vast difference between the two. His patent is currently in use today with those decorative misters you see in craft shops.

5) Same as 1

Your arguments are valid concerning the atomization of water into smaller water droplets, but you can't burn water. You have to disassociate the H and the O before you can do that. The law of the conservation of energy indicates that the amount of energy stored in the bond between H and O in water is theoretically the same as the amount of energy given off when they combine. Therefore the amount of energy required to separate it is equal to the amount of energy you get by combining it.

Hydrocarbons like gasoline are ready to burn in the presence of oxygen. They are at a high energy level in their present state. That's why they're flammable. Water has already combusted (combustion is the process by which substances combine with oxygen and give off energy). Water is like the exhaust that comes out of your car... the hydrogen has already combined with oxygen, just like the hydrocarbons have combined with oxygen in a gasoline car. Asking a car to separate water in to H and O only to combine it again is like asking a car to separate your exhaust back into gasoline, O and N so it can be reburned. The energy levels involved are incredible.

Forget about the word atomize. I can do that by blowing bubbles in my soda. The word we need here disassociate. Another analogy if I may: The bond between H and O in water is like two magnets stuck together. In order to split them you must exert energy. When they go back together, they pull with the same energy you had to pull to get them apart. Since it takes as much energy to pull them apart as you get back when you let them rejoin, the net result is zero energy for doing any work. Gasoline is a liquid that is like a bunch of magnets floating around waiting for oxygen to let them join. In gasoline, the "magnets" are already apart. The spark and the oxygen let them combine. We harness the energy that is given off when the "magnets" come together.

Again, no flames, just counterpoint.

[joe_a_buaiz]

I'm certainly not trying to start an arguement here. In fact, if it was up to me we would be talking about Pogue's carb.

I didn't read the last two paragraphs of your earlier post before I replied, so I will now:

Of course patents are easy to get. I do think that Horvath's machine would work, however. The patent is certainly not for a 'water carburetor.' The venturi nozzles were used in Pogue's gas carb, not Horvath's system. I don't mean to sound mean, and, like I say, I don't want to start an arguement (maybe a friendly debate, but certainly not an arguement), but I don't think you studied the patents. You're quite right about no physical manipulation being able to decompose water into it's hydrogen and oxygen gasses, and that is why there is no physical manipulation in Horvath's system. We need to remember to distinguish between Horvath and Pogue. Horvath uses electrolysis; Pogue uses atomisation and heat to vaporise the gasoline.

I don't see how combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas will leave behind water. I got my terms confused; I used the word atomise to describe the decomposition of water into its hydrogen gasses and oxygen gasses. Horvath's system does use electrolysis; I strongly recommend that you read the description in the patent that I linked to. The mist machines do not use electrolysis; if they did, eventually the room that they are in would be filled with explosive hydrogen and explosive oxygen. Horvath uses electrolysis; Pogue uses atomisation and heat. Both systems create combustible vapor. Again, look at Horvath's patent. I don't think Horvath patented a mist machine.

I strongly recommend that you read, study, and understand both the Horvath patent, and the Pogue patent. Horvath's system is rather complex compared to Pogue's carburetor, and it is certainly not easy reading. To read Horvath's patent, I recommend that you print every page (26) and use the certificate of corrections on the last page to mark your printed pages before you start reading.

Anyway, I would rather be talking about Pogue's carburetor. It is very interesting. It uses the principle that gasoline vapor is more explosive than gasoline liquid. I know that that's true from experience. I have the patent linked above. I've decided to build one for myself, just to see if it works. If you like, you can build Horvath's system, and we'll get back to each other.

---Joe

[TheSilentChamber]

You've also got to remember that in a gasoline engine, you have a controled burn, not an explosion. When you substiture the gas for gas vapors you will end up withmore of an explosion than a controled burn.

Also, oxygen is not explosive.

[joe_a_buaiz]

I guess I'll have to say it again: Look at the patent. The gas vapors are diluted with atmospheric air, resulting in a weaker mixture. If you pumped pure gasoline vapor into an engine, it would eventually beat itself to death.

You're right, oxygen is not technically explosive, but it is flammable, and it will cause other things to become more explosive, like hydrogen.

Oxygen + Hydrogen = Invisible dynamite.

---Joe

[curtis73]

After reviewing the patent again, I stand by my original argument. Just because the patent says it should work, doesn't mean it does work. I think this is another patent designed to drum up business since it is chemically impossible to acheive what he claims in that patent.

So, I see and respect your argument, but I can't agree with it since I feel the patent is a hoax.

[joe_a_buaiz]

You don't have to agree. You can think what you'll think, and I'll think what I think. Deal? I don't want to start an argument, so let's just agree to disagree.

I'm going to build a Pogue soon. You went to college; do you think that'll work? (I know you said chemistry, not thermodynamics, but I'd say you have an opinion.)

I have decided to build it mainly from rivited, and soldered copper, because copper is much stronger than aluminum, and it is nearly impossible to join two pieces of aluminum without a mechanical fastener (Aluminum has to be welded, and the weld is about $100 for a large coil. That's nearly impossible for me.).

The outside casing, mixing/heating chambers, and vaporising chamber shell, will be made of sheet-copper. The downdraft tube will be made of stainless steel, or a similar rust-proof alloy, as will the Venturi nozzle caps, rotary plug valve, pipe fittings, and throttle and choke valve stems. The throttle and choke valves themselves, will be salvaged and re-fitted to the Venturi downdraft tube. The primitive vapor pump, located on top of the carb, will not be used, instead, a more modern, but still vacuum powered, pump will be used. You should never use an electric pump, to pump gas or gas vapors. The throttle and choke linkage don't really matter, but I'll probably use leftover stainless steel. The float valve and nozzles will be purchased new. The outside hoses will be standard gas-emissions hoses.
The forced air inlet into the vaporising chamber will be powered by another vacuum powered pump, as will the heat pump, to pump heated air through the outside casing of the carb, from inside a piece of sheet-metal, that will be formed around the exhaust manifold in my car. (That is, if I can find vacuum-powered motors that will pump air.) The patent says that actual exhaust from the car should be used, but I don't like that idea.

I will be making a couple of improvements to the carb:
Newer type vacuum motors, motors to pump air into the vaporising chamber, and heated air through the outside casing of the carb, and fully adjustable throttle linkage, including the linkage for the rotary plug valve.

The hard part will, of course, be gathering all these materials and parts(except the copper; I can get sheet-copper pretty cheap.).

Curtis, you know about chemistry; niether of these metals will react with the gas fumes, will they? (That's more metalurgy, but you do seem to know about that sort of thing.)

When I actually start building the thing, I'll post pictures.

---Joe

[joe_a_buaiz]

I've re-thought the type of metals I will be using. Stainless steel is hard to machine. It's gummy. If you lathe it to a certain size, and then go across again, without moving the tool in, it will still cut quite a bit. I've decided instead that the downdraft tube will be copper or brass, and will be square on the outside, for ease of assembly. The plug valve will be stainless or leaded steel. It's important to not use like metals in an assembly like the plug valve assembly. They'll eventually 'gaum up.' I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier (I guess I hadn't had enough coffee yet.). The little Venturi tubes over the spray nozzles will be made of small bits of copper tubing, flared at each end, with the baffles just soldered on. The rest will be copper.
The idea of using mechanical fuel injectors crossed my mind, but I don't think the gas pump in my car would make enough pressure. So the old spray nozzle and Venturi tube trick seems to be my best bet.
I also decided to locate the vacuum heat pump on the other side of the carburetor, than the heat source. I figure that once the heated air has gone through the carb, and gone down a hose at the other end, it will be cool enough that I won't have to worry about the pump being damaged by the heat. Anyway, it seems to me, that the engine wll run considerably cooler with this carb. I guess I'll find out.
I also decided to install a one-way valve in the overflow line, going between the overflow valve in the carb, and the gas line before the pump.

---Joe